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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Acute Delivery of EphA4-Fc Improves Functional Recovery after Contusive Spinal Cord Injury in Rats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurotrauma, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1089/neu.2012.2729 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark Damien Spanevello, Sophie Ines Tajouri, Cornel Mirciov, Nyoman Kurniawan, Martin John Pearse, Louis Jerry Fabri, Catherine Mary Owczarek, Matthew Philip Hardy, Rebecca Anne Bradford, Melanie Louise Ramunno, Ann Maree Turnley, Marc Jan Ruitenberg, Andrew Wallace Boyd, Perry Francis Bartlett |
| Abstract |
Blocking the action of inhibitory molecules at sites of central nervous system injury has been proposed as a strategy to promote axonal regeneration and functional recovery. We have previously shown that genetic deletion or competitive antagonism of EphA4 receptor activity promotes axonal regeneration and functional recovery in a mouse model of lateral hemisection spinal cord injury. Here we have assessed the effect of blocking EphA4 activation using the competitive antagonist EphA4-Fc in a rat model of thoracic contusive spinal cord injury. Using a ledged tapered balance beam and open-field testing, we observed significant improvements in recovery of locomotor function after EphA4-Fc treatment. Consistent with functional improvement, using high-resolution ex vivo magnetic resonance imaging at 16.4T, we found that rats treated with EphA4-Fc had a significantly increased cross-sectional area of the dorsal funiculus caudal to the injury epicenter compared with controls. Our findings indicate that EphA4-Fc promotes functional recovery following contusive spinal cord injury and provides further support for the therapeutic benefit of treatment with the competitive antagonist in acute cases of spinal cord injury. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 41% |
| Researcher | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 19% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 16% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 05 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,157,173
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurotrauma
#158
of 2,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,273
of 197,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurotrauma
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 197,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 95% of its contemporaries.