↓ Skip to main content

Mutual Antagonism between Circadian Protein Period 2 and Hepatitis C Virus Replication in Hepatocytes

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2013
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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.
Title
Mutual Antagonism between Circadian Protein Period 2 and Hepatitis C Virus Replication in Hepatocytes
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0060527
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giorgia Benegiamo, Gianluigi Mazzoccoli, Francesco Cappello, Francesca Rappa, Nunzia Scibetta, Jude Oben, Azzura Greco, Roger Williams, Angelo Andriulli, Manlio Vinciguerra, Valerio Pazienza

Abstract

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infects approximately 3% of the world population and is the leading cause of liver disease, impacting hepatocyte metabolism, depending on virus genotype. Hepatic metabolic functions show rhythmic fluctuations with 24-h periodicity (circadian), driven by molecular clockworks ticking through translational-transcriptional feedback loops, operated by a set of genes, called clock genes, encoding circadian proteins. Disruption of biologic clocks is implicated in a variety of disorders including fatty liver disease, obesity and diabetes. The relation between HCV replication and the circadian clock is unknown.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 8%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 8 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 26 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,561,852
of 24,753,534 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#31,776
of 214,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,985
of 203,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#740
of 5,278 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,753,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 203,814 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,278 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.