↓ Skip to main content

Systemic administration of epothilone B promotes axon regeneration after spinal cord injury

Overview of attention for article published in Science, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
397 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Systemic administration of epothilone B promotes axon regeneration after spinal cord injury
Published in
Science, March 2015
DOI 10.1126/science.aaa2958
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

After central nervous system (CNS) injury, inhibitory factors in the lesion scar and poor axon growth potential prevent axon regeneration. Microtubule stabilization reduces scarring and promotes axon growth. However, the cellular mechanisms of this dual effect remain unclear. Here, delayed systemic administration of a blood-brain barrier permeable microtubule stabilizing drug, epothilone B (epoB), decreased scarring after rodent spinal cord injury (SCI) by abrogating polarization and directed migration of scar-forming fibroblasts. Conversely, epothilone B reactivated neuronal polarization by inducing concerted microtubule polymerization into the axon tip, which propelled axon growth through an inhibitory environment. Together, these drug elicited effects promoted axon regeneration and improved motor function after SCI. With recent clinical approval, epothilones hold promise for clinical use after CNS injury.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 397 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Germany 3 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 384 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 94 24%
Researcher 55 14%
Student > Bachelor 46 12%
Student > Master 38 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 7%
Other 65 16%
Unknown 73 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 92 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 83 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 38 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 9%
Engineering 15 4%
Other 36 9%
Unknown 97 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 186. 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 01 November 2022.
All research outputs
#267,198
of 33,940,276 outputs
Outputs from Science
#6,967
of 93,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,482
of 299,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#149
of 1,395 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,940,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 93,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 65.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 299,347 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,395 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.