↓ Skip to main content

Demonstration That C-Reactive Protein Decreases eNOS Expression and Bioactivity in Human Aortic Endothelial Cells

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation, September 2002
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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 tweeters
patent
10 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
617 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Demonstration That C-Reactive Protein Decreases eNOS Expression and Bioactivity in Human Aortic Endothelial Cells
Published in
Circulation, September 2002
DOI 10.1161/01.cir.0000033116.22237.f9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Senthil Kumar Venugopal, Sridevi Devaraj, Ivan Yuhanna, Philip Shaul, Ishwarlal Jialal

Abstract

C-reactive protein (CRP), the prototypic marker of inflammation, has been shown to be an independent predictor of cardiovascular events. Endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) deficiency is a pivotal event in atherogenesis. We tested the effect of CRP on eNOS expression and bioactivity in cultured human aortic endothelial cells (HAECs). CRP decreased eNOS mRNA, protein abundance, and enzyme activity in HAECs. Furthermore, eNOS bioactivity assayed by cyclic GMP levels was significantly reduced by CRP. Preincubation of cells with CRP also significantly increased the adhesion of monocytes to HAECs. CRP causes a direct reduction in eNOS expression and bioactivity in HAECs, further supporting its role in atherogenesis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Japan 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 111 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Master 17 15%
Other 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 33 28%
Unknown 11 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 10%
Sports and Recreations 4 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 11 9%

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 14 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,239,428
of 14,030,622 outputs
Outputs from Circulation
#3,016
of 16,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,314
of 376,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation
#100
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,030,622 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 16,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 376,506 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.