↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms linking mtDNA damage and aging

Overview of attention for article published in Free Radical Biology & Medicine, May 2015
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
241 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
Mechanisms linking mtDNA damage and aging
Published in
Free Radical Biology & Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2015.05.005
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In the last century, considerable efforts were made to understand the role of mtDNA mutations and of oxidative stress in aging. The classic mitochondrial free radical theory of aging, in which mtDNA mutations cause genotoxic oxidative stress, which in turn creates more mutations, has been a central hypothesis in the field for decades. In the last few years, however, new elements have discredited this original theory. The major source of mitochondrial DNA mutations seems to come from replication errors and failure of the repair mechanisms, and the accumulation of these mutations as observed in aged organisms appears to occur by clonal expansion and are not caused by a reactive oxygen species-dependent vicious cycle. New hypotheses of how age-associated mitochondrial dysfunction may lead to aging are based on the role of reactive oxygen species as signaling molecules and on their role in mediating stress responses to age-dependent damage. Here, we review the changes that mtDNA undergoes during aging, and the past and most recent hypotheses linking these changes to the tissue failure observed in aging.

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 7 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 241 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 %
Spain 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 235 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 18%
Researcher 30 12%
Student > Master 22 9%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Other 10 4%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 78 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 51 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 44 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 8%
Chemistry 10 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 2%
Other 20 8%
Unknown 92 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,769,528
of 34,560,573 outputs
Outputs from Free Radical Biology & Medicine
#406
of 6,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,424
of 307,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Free Radical Biology & Medicine
#7
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,560,573 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 307,047 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 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 92% of its contemporaries.