↓ Skip to main content

Targeting Epigenetic Mechanisms for Chronic Pain: A Valid Approach for the Development of Novel Therapeutics

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Targeting Epigenetic Mechanisms for Chronic Pain: A Valid Approach for the Development of Novel Therapeutics
Published in
The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, January 2016
DOI 10.1124/jpet.115.231670
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. O. Ligon, R. D. Moloney, B. Greenwood-Van Meerveld

Abstract

Chronic pain is a multi-faceted and complex condition. Broadly classified into somatic, visceral or neuropathic pain, it is poorly managed despite its prevalence. Current drugs used for the treatment of chronic pain are limited by tolerance with long-term use, abuse potential, and multiple adverse side effects. The persistent nature of pain suggests that epigenetic machinery may be a critical factor driving chronic pain. In this review we discuss the latest insights into epigenetic processes, including DNA methylation, histone modifications and miRNAs, and describe their involvement in the pathophysiology of chronic pain and whether epigenetic modifications could be applied as future therapeutic targets for chronic pain. We provide evidence from experimental models and translational research in human tissue that have enhanced our understanding of epigenetic processes mediating nociception and then speculate on the potential future use of more specific and selective agents that target epigenetic mechanisms to attenuate pain.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 26 30%
Student > Bachelor 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 17%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 10 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Neuroscience 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 12 14%

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 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#10,274,523
of 13,465,622 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
#3,291
of 3,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,532
of 336,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
#36
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,465,622 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,911 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 336,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.