↓ Skip to main content

Urine Proteomics in Kidney Disease Biomarker Discovery

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Urine Proteomics in Kidney Disease Biomarker Discovery'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 Urine Is a Better Biomarker Source Than Blood Especially for Kidney Diseases
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 Urine Reflection of Changes in Blood
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 Urimem Facilitates Kidney Disease Biomarker Research
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 Human urine proteome: a powerful source for clinical research.
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 Exosomes in Urine Biomarker Discovery
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 Urinary Proteins with Post-translational Modifications.
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Applications of Peptide retention time in proteomic data analysis.
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 Urine Sample Preparation in 96-well Filter Plates to Characterize Inflammatory and Infectious Diseases of the Urinary Tract.
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Variations of human urinary proteome.
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 Evolution of the urinary proteome during human renal development and maturation.
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Hormone-dependent changes in female urinary proteome.
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 Effects of exercise on the urinary proteome.
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Effects of diuretics on urinary proteins.
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 Applications of urinary proteomics in renal disease research using animal models.
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 The application of urinary proteomics for the detection of biomarkers of kidney diseases.
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 Dynamic changes of urinary proteins in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis model.
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 Using isolated rat kidney to discover kidney origin biomarkers in urine.
  19. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 18 Comparing plasma and urinary proteomes to understand kidney function.
  20. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 19 Urinary protein biomarker database: a useful tool for biomarker discovery.
Attention for Chapter 11: Hormone-dependent changes in female urinary proteome.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 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.
Chapter title
Hormone-dependent changes in female urinary proteome.
Chapter number 11
Book title
Urine Proteomics in Kidney Disease Biomarker Discovery
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9523-4_11
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-9-40-179522-7, 978-9-40-179523-4
Authors

Castagna A, Channavajjhala SK, Pizzolo F, Olivieri O, Annalisa Castagna, Sarath Kiran Channavajjhala, Francesca Pizzolo, Oliviero Olivieri

Abstract

Human urine represents a good source for proteomic research for clinically related studies as it can be collected and processed easily and can give information about kidney-related mechanisms. Little is known about the urinary proteomic changes resulting from physiological (normal), pathological, or environmental variations, and there are few reports on hormone-related modifications of urine proteome. In our study, we highlighted the variations of urinary proteins associated with menstrual cycle or estro-progestin pill in females. We also described an association between some urinary proteins and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which might help to improve the understanding of physiological and pathological processes when a gender-specific pattern such as the menopause-related hypertension or eclampsia is evident. We therefore support the usefulness of urinary proteomics as a valuable tool for clinically related study as it can provide information on candidate biomarkers which, in turn, need to be confirmed by multiple approaches before the use in a clinical setting.

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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 25%
Student > Master 1 25%
Unknown 2 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 50%
Unknown 2 50%

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 18 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,459,184
of 4,888,368 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#858
of 1,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,293
of 172,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#114
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,888,368 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,471 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 172,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.