↓ Skip to main content

Differential Regulation of Eicosanoid and Endocannabinoid Production by Inflammatory Mediators in Human Choriodecidua

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Differential Regulation of Eicosanoid and Endocannabinoid Production by Inflammatory Mediators in Human Choriodecidua
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0148306
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. D. Mitchell, G. E. Rice, K. Vaswani, D. Kvaskoff, H. N. Peiris

Abstract

An increase in intrauterine prostaglandin production is critical for the onset and progression of labor in women and indeed all mammalian species studied. Endocannabinoids can act as substrates for enzymes of the prostaglandin biosynthetic pathways and can be utilized to generate other related compounds such as prostamides. The end products are indistinguishable by radioimmunoassay. We have separated such compounds by mass spectrometry. We now show that inflammatory stimuli such as LPS and proinflammatory cytokines act differentially on these pathways in human choriodecidua and preferentially create drive through to prostaglandin end products. These findings create doubt about the interpretation of data on prostaglandin biosynthesis in intrauterine tissues from pregnant women especially in the presence of an infection. The possibility is raised that separation of these products might reduce variability in results and lead to potential uses for their measurement in the diagnosis of preterm labor.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Other 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 12 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 April 2021.
All research outputs
#15,170,542
of 23,332,901 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#128,576
of 199,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,315
of 399,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,167
of 5,198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,332,901 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 199,532 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 399,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,198 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.