The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Enhancing NAD+ salvage metabolism is neuroprotective in a PINK1 model of Parkinson's disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology Open, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1242/bio.022186 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susann Lehmann, Samantha H. Y. Loh, L. Miguel Martins |
| Abstract |
Familial forms of Parkinson's disease (PD) caused by mutations in PINK1 are linked to mitochondrial impairment. Defective mitochondria are also found in Drosophila models of PD with pink1 mutations. The co-enzyme nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD(+)) is essential for both generating energy in mitochondria and nuclear DNA repair through NAD(+)-consuming poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARPs). We found alterations in NAD(+) salvage metabolism in Drosophila pink1 mutants and showed that a diet supplemented with the NAD(+) precursor nicotinamide rescued mitochondrial defects and protected neurons from degeneration. Additionally, a mutation of Parp improved mitochondrial function and was neuroprotective in the pink1 mutants. We conclude that enhancing the availability of NAD(+) by either the use of a diet supplemented with NAD(+) precursors or the inhibition of NAD(+)-dependent enzymes, such as PARPs, which compete with mitochondria for NAD(+) is a viable approach to preventing neurotoxicity associated with mitochondrial defects. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 22% |
| Unknown | 7 | 78% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 90 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 35 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 37 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 128. 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 11 April 2020.
All research outputs
#274,414
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Biology Open
#4
of 1,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,196
of 393,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Open
#1
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,635 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 393,872 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 98% of its contemporaries.