↓ Skip to main content

Synaptic Defects in the Spinal and Neuromuscular Circuitry in a Mouse Model of Spinal Muscular Atrophy

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
177 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Synaptic Defects in the Spinal and Neuromuscular Circuitry in a Mouse Model of Spinal Muscular Atrophy
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0015457
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen K. Y. Ling, Ming-Yi Lin, Brian Zingg, Zhihua Feng, Chien-Ping Ko

Abstract

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a major genetic cause of death in childhood characterized by marked muscle weakness. To investigate mechanisms underlying motor impairment in SMA, we examined the spinal and neuromuscular circuitry governing hindlimb ambulatory behavior in SMA model mice (SMNΔ7). In the neuromuscular circuitry, we found that nearly all neuromuscular junctions (NMJs) in hindlimb muscles of SMNΔ7 mice remained fully innervated at the disease end stage and were capable of eliciting muscle contraction, despite a modest reduction in quantal content. In the spinal circuitry, we observed a ∼28% loss of synapses onto spinal motoneurons in the lateral column of lumbar segments 3-5, and a significant reduction in proprioceptive sensory neurons, which may contribute to the 50% reduction in vesicular glutamate transporter 1(VGLUT1)-positive synapses onto SMNΔ7 motoneurons. In addition, there was an increase in the association of activated microglia with SMNΔ7 motoneurons. Together, our results present a novel concept that synaptic defects occur at multiple levels of the spinal and neuromuscular circuitry in SMNΔ7 mice, and that proprioceptive spinal synapses could be a potential target for SMA therapy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Unknown 134 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 20%
Researcher 24 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Master 13 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 7%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 29 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 29%
Neuroscience 26 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 8%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 31 22%
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 19 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,313,289
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#130,560
of 194,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,613
of 100,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#811
of 992 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 100,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 992 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.