↓ Skip to main content

Adrenergic nerve degeneration in bone marrow drives aging of the hematopoietic stem cell niche

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
59 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Adrenergic nerve degeneration in bone marrow drives aging of the hematopoietic stem cell niche
Published in
Nature Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41591-018-0030-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Maryanovich, Ali H. Zahalka, Halley Pierce, Sandra Pinho, Fumio Nakahara, Noboru Asada, Qiaozhi Wei, Xizhe Wang, Paul Ciero, Jianing Xu, Avigdor Leftin, Paul S. Frenette

Abstract

Aging of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) is associated with a decline in their regenerative capacity and multilineage differentiation potential, contributing to the development of blood disorders. The bone marrow microenvironment has recently been suggested to influence HSC aging, but the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown. Here we show that HSC aging critically depends on bone marrow innervation by the sympathetic nervous system (SNS), as loss of SNS nerves or adrenoreceptor β3 signaling in the bone marrow microenvironment of young mice led to premature HSC aging, as evidenced by appearance of HSC phenotypes reminiscent of physiological aging. Strikingly, supplementation of a sympathomimetic acting selectively on adrenoreceptor β3 to old mice significantly rejuvenated the in vivo function of aged HSCs, suggesting that the preservation or restitution of bone marrow SNS innervation during aging may hold the potential for new HSC rejuvenation strategies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 32%
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Master 18 15%
Unspecified 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 18 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 21%
Unspecified 22 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 17 14%
Other 10 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#413,231
of 13,361,190 outputs
Outputs from Nature Medicine
#1,037
of 6,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,072
of 269,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Medicine
#51
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,361,190 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,640 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 269,211 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.