↓ Skip to main content

Trophic factors for Parkinson's disease: Where are we and where do we go from here?

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Neuroscience, February 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Trophic factors for Parkinson's disease: Where are we and where do we go from here?
Published in
European Journal of Neuroscience, February 2019
DOI 10.1111/ejn.14102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gesine Paul, Aideen M. Sullivan

Abstract

Perhaps the most important unmet clinical need in Parkinson's disease (PD) is the development of a therapy that can slow or halt disease progression. Extensive preclinical research has provided evidence for the neurorestorative properties of several growth factors, yet only a few have been evaluated in clinical studies. Attempts to achieve neuroprotection by addressing cell-autonomous mechanisms and targeting dopaminergic neurons have been disappointing. Four different trophic factors have so far entered clinical trials in PD: glial cell line-derived growth factor, its close structural and functional analog neurturin, platelet-derived growth factor and cerebral dopaminergic neurotrophic factor. This article reviews the pre-clinical evidence for the neuroprotective and neurorestorative actions of these growth factors and discusses limitations of preclinical models, which may hamper successful translation to the clinic. We summarize the previous and ongoing clinical trials using growth factors in PD and emphasize the caveats in clinical trial design that may prevent the further development and registration of potentially neuroprotective and neurorestorative treatments for individuals suffering from PD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 22%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 17 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Chemical Engineering 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 20 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,306,560
of 23,392,375 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Neuroscience
#1,447
of 5,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,104
of 440,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Neuroscience
#21
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,392,375 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 440,099 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.