| Title |
Stable Liquid Glucagon Formulations for Rescue Treatment and Bi-Hormonal Closed-Loop Pancreas
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Diabetes Reports, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11892-012-0320-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melanie A. Jackson, Nicholas Caputo, Jessica R. Castle, Larry L. David, Charles T. Roberts, W. Kenneth Ward |
| Abstract |
Small doses of glucagon given subcutaneously in the research setting by an automated system prevent most cases of hypoglycemia in persons with diabetes. However, glucagon is very unstable and cannot be kept in a portable pump. Glucagon rapidly forms amyloid fibrils, even within the first day after reconstitution. Aggregation eventually leads to insoluble gels, which occlude pump catheters. Fibrillation occurs rapidly at acid pH, but is absent or minimal at alkaline pH values of ~10. Glucagon also degrades over time; this problem is greater at alkaline pH. Several studies suggest that its primary degradative pathway is deamidation, which results in a conversion of asparagine to aspartic acid. A cell-based assay for glucagon bioactivity that assesses glucagon receptor (GluR) activation can screen promising glucagon formulations. However, mammalian hepatocytes are usually problematic as they can lose GluR expression during culture. Assays for cyclic AMP (cAMP) or its downstream effector, protein kinase A (PKA), in engineered cell systems, are more reliable and suitable for inexpensive, high-throughput assessment of bioactivity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 37% |
| Engineering | 6 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 6 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 28 February 2023.
All research outputs
#4,680,551
of 23,445,423 outputs
Outputs from Current Diabetes Reports
#247
of 1,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,662
of 169,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Diabetes Reports
#7
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,445,423 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,021 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 169,737 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.