You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
In Vitro Metabolic Stability and in Vivo Biodistribution of 3‑Methyl-4-furoxancarbaldehyde Using PET Imaging in Rats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.5b00410 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam B. Pippin, Zaira Hidayah Mohd Arshad, Ronald J. Voll, Jonathon A. Nye, Sussan Ghassabian, Craig M. Williams, Alessandra Mancini, Dennis C. Liotta, Maree T. Smith, Mark M. Goodman |
| Abstract |
Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a type of peripheral neuropathic pain that is currently difficult to treat using clinically available analgesics. Recent work suggests a progressive depletion of nitric oxide (NO) in nerve cells may be responsible for the pathobiology of PDN. The nitric oxide donor, 3-methyl-4-furoxancarbaldehyde (PRG150), has been shown to produce dose-dependent analgesia in a rat model of PDN. To gain insight into the mechanism of analgesia, methods to radiolabel PRG150 were developed to assess the in vivo biodistribution in rats. The furoxan ring was labeled with (13)N to follow any nitric oxide release and the 3-methyl substituent was labeled with (11)C to track the metabolite using PET imaging. The in vitro metabolic stability of PRG150 was assessed in rat liver microsomes and compared to in vivo metabolism of the synthesized radiotracers. PET images revealed a higher uptake of (13)N over (11)C radioactivity in the spinal cord. The differences in radioactive uptake could indicate that a NO release in the spinal cord and other components of the somatosensory nervous system may be responsible for the analgesic effects of PRG150 seen in the rat model of PDN. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 4 | 25% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 19% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#2,570,718
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters
#202
of 2,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,772
of 316,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters
#4
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.