↓ Skip to main content

Myocardial transcription factors in diastolic dysfunction: clues for model systems and disease

Overview of attention for article published in Heart Failure Reviews, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Myocardial transcription factors in diastolic dysfunction: clues for model systems and disease
Published in
Heart Failure Reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10741-016-9569-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander T. Mikhailov, Mario Torrado

Abstract

There are multiple intrinsic mechanisms for diastolic dysfunction ranging from molecular to structural derangements in ventricular myocardium. The molecular mechanisms regulating the progression from normal diastolic function to severe dysfunction still remain poorly understood. Recent studies suggest a potentially important role of core cardio-enriched transcription factors (TFs) in the control of cardiac diastolic function in health and disease through their ability to regulate the expression of target genes involved in the process of adaptive and maladaptive cardiac remodeling. The current relevant findings on the role of a variety of such TFs (TBX5, GATA-4/6, SRF, MYOCD, NRF2, and PITX2) in cardiac diastolic dysfunction and failure are updated, emphasizing their potential as promising targets for novel treatment strategies. In turn, the new animal models described here will be key tools in determining the underlying molecular mechanisms of disease. Since diastolic dysfunction is regulated by various TFs, which are also involved in cross talk with each other, there is a need for more in-depth research from a biomedical perspective in order to establish efficient therapeutic strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Unknown 6 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,463,662
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Heart Failure Reviews
#549
of 667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,958
of 352,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart Failure Reviews
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 352,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.