↓ Skip to main content

Insulinotropic compounds decrease endothelial cell survival

Overview of attention for article published in Toxicology in Vitro, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Insulinotropic compounds decrease endothelial cell survival
Published in
Toxicology in Vitro, February 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.tiv.2016.02.004
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Hyperglycemia induces damage of vascular endothelial cells leading to diabetic complications. We investigated the effects of insulinotropic compounds and elevated glucose on endothelial cells in the absence or presence of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) were treated with glibenclamide, repaglinide and insulinotropic imidazolines at high glucose concentration in the presence or absence of VEGF and viability, proliferation and nitric oxide production were measured. Hyperglycemia inhibited pro-survival effects of VEGF on endothelial cells. Glibenclamide and repaglinide decreased HUVEC viability at elevated glucose concentration in the absence but not in the presence of VEGF, without affecting HUVEC proliferation. Repaglinide also had some positive influence on HUVEC function elevating NO production in the presence of VEGF. Imidazolines showed different activities on endothelial cell survival. Efaroxan diminished HUVEC viability at elevated glucose concentration in the presence, however not in the absence of VEGF, while RX871024 decreased HUVEC survival regardless of the presence of VEGF. Our data demonstrate an important interplay between the actual insulinotropic compounds, VEGF and ambient glucose concentration affecting the survival of the vascular endothelial cells. Consequently, this interplay needs to be taken into consideration when designing novel oral antidiabetic compounds.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 7 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 %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 43%
Other 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 1 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 14%
Engineering 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%
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 18 February 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Toxicology in Vitro
#1,610
of 1,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#351,340
of 410,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Toxicology in Vitro
#21
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 1,875 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. 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 410,080 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 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.