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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Corneal Wound Healing Is Compromised by Immunoproteasome Deficiency
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0054347 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Deborah A. Ferrington, Heidi Roehrich, Angela A. Chang, Craig W. Huang, Marcela Maldonado, Wendy Bratten, Abrar A. Rageh, Neal D. Heuss, Dale S. Gregerson, Elizabeth F. Nelson, Ching Yuan |
| Abstract |
Recent studies have revealed roles for immunoproteasome in regulating cell processes essential for maintaining homeostasis and in responding to stress and injury. The current study investigates how the absence of immunoproteasome affects the corneal epithelium under normal and stressed conditions by comparing corneas from wildtype (WT) mice and those deficient in two immunoproteasome catalytic subunits (lmp7(-/-)/mecl-1(-/-), L7M1). Immunoproteasome expression was confirmed in WT epithelial cells and in cells of the immune system that were present in the cornea. More apoptotic cells were found in both corneal explant cultures and uninjured corneas of L7M1 compared to WT mice. Following mechanical debridement, L7M1 corneas displayed delayed wound healing, including delayed re-epithelialization and re-establishment of the epithelial barrier, as well as altered inflammatory cytokine production compared to WT mice. These results suggest that immunoproteasome plays an important role in corneal homeostasis and wound healing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 22% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 22% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 January 2013.
All research outputs
#14,014,692
of 23,248,929 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#115,122
of 198,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,453
of 283,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,691
of 5,010 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,248,929 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 198,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 283,022 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,010 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.