↓ Skip to main content

Dietary polyphenols decrease glucose uptake by human intestinal Caco‐2 cells

Overview of attention for article published in Febs Letters, February 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
patent
7 patents
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
11 Redditors
video
4 YouTube creators

Readers on

mendeley
245 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.
Article details
Title
Dietary polyphenols decrease glucose uptake by human intestinal Caco‐2 cells
Published in
Febs Letters, February 2005
DOI 10.1016/j.febslet.2004.12.099
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The effect of different classes of dietary polyphenols on intestinal glucose uptake was investigated using polarised Caco-2 intestinal cells. Glucose uptake into cells under sodium-dependent conditions was inhibited by flavonoid glycosides and non-glycosylated polyphenols whereas aglycones and phenolic acids were without effect. Under sodium-free conditions, aglycones and non-glycosylated polyphenols inhibited glucose uptake whereas glycosides and phenolic acids were ineffective. These data suggest that aglycones inhibit facilitated glucose uptake whereas glycosides inhibit the active transport of glucose. The non-glycosylated dietary polyphenols appear to exert their effects via steric hindrance, and (-)-epigallochatechingallate, (-)-epichatechingallate and (-)-epigallochatechin are effective against both transporters.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 245 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 15%
Researcher 30 12%
Student > Bachelor 26 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Other 37 15%
Unknown 56 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 65 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 4%
Chemistry 10 4%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 74 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 24 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,222,956
of 34,363,559 outputs
Outputs from Febs Letters
#218
of 17,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,816
of 104,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Febs Letters
#4
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,363,559 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,626 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 104,365 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 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 96% of its contemporaries.