↓ Skip to main content

Effects of ganglioside G(M1) and erythropoietin on spinal cord lesions in rats: functional and histological evaluations

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
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.
Title
Effects of ganglioside G(M1) and erythropoietin on spinal cord lesions in rats: functional and histological evaluations
Published in
Clinics, June 2016
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2016(06)11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raphael Martus Marcon, Alexandre Fogaça Cristante, Tarcísio Eloy Pessoa de Barros, Ricardo Ferreira, Gustavo Bispo Dos Santos

Abstract

To evaluate the functional and histological effects of ganglioside G(M1) and erythropoietin after experimental spinal cord contusion injury. Fifty male Wistar rats underwent experimental spinal cord lesioning using an NYU-Impactor device and were randomly divided into the following groups, which received treatment intraperitoneally. The G(M1) group received ganglioside G(M1) (30 mg/kg); the erythropoietin group received erythropoietin (1000 IU/kg); the combined group received both drugs; and the saline group received saline (0.9%) as a control. A fifth group was the laminectomy group, in which the animals were subjected to laminectomy alone, without spinal lesioning or treatment. The animals were evaluated according to the Basso, Beattie and Bresnahan (BBB) scale, motor evoked potential recordings and, after euthanasia, histological analysis of spinal cord tissue. The erythropoietin group had higher BBB scores than the G(M1) group. The combined group had the highest BBB scores, and the saline group had the lowest BBB scores. No significant difference in latency was observed between the three groups that underwent spinal cord lesioning and intervention. However, the combined group showed a significantly higher signal amplitude than the other treatment groups or the saline group (p<0.01). Histological tissue analysis showed no significant difference between the groups. Axonal index was significantly enhanced in the combined group than any other intervention (p<0.01). G(M1) and erythropoietin exert therapeutic effects on axonal regeneration and electrophysiological and motor functions in rats subjected to experimental spinal cord lesioning and administering these two substances in combination potentiates their effects.

X Demographics

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.
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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 33%
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Student > Master 3 20%
Researcher 2 13%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 33%
Neuroscience 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
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 21 July 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#1,001
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,345
of 353,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 353,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.