↓ Skip to main content

Plasma Levels of Endothelial Microparticles Bearing Monomeric C-reactive Protein are Increased in Peripheral Artery Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Plasma Levels of Endothelial Microparticles Bearing Monomeric C-reactive Protein are Increased in Peripheral Artery Disease
Published in
Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12265-016-9678-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey R. Crawford, JoAnn Trial, Vijay Nambi, Ron C. Hoogeveen, George E. Taffet, Mark L. Entman

Abstract

C-reactive protein (CRP) as an indicator of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has shown limited sensitivity. We demonstrate that two isoforms of CRP (pentameric, pCRP and monomeric, mCRP) present in soluble form or on microparticles (MPs) have different biological effects and are not all measured by clinical CRP assays. The high-sensitivity CRP assay (hsCRP) did not measure pCRP or mCRP on MPs, whereas flow cytometry did. MPs derived from endothelial cells, particularly those bearing mCRP, were elevated in peripheral artery disease (PAD) patients compared to controls. The numbers of mCRP(+) endothelial MPs did not correlate with hsCRP measurements of soluble pCRP, indicating their independent modulation. In controls, statins lowered mCRP(+) endothelial MPs. In a model of vascular inflammation, mCRP induced endothelial shedding of MPs and was proinflammatory, while pCRP was anti-inflammatory. mCRP on endothelial MPs may be both an unmeasured indicator of, and an amplifier of, vascular disease, and its detection might improve risk sensitivity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,359,595
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
#359
of 576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,591
of 298,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 298,010 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 12 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.