↓ Skip to main content

Membrane Repair: Mechanisms and Pathophysiology

Overview of attention for article published in Physiological Reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
281 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
320 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
Membrane Repair: Mechanisms and Pathophysiology
Published in
Physiological Reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1152/physrev.00037.2014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra T Cooper, Paul L McNeil

Abstract

Eukaryotic cells have been confronted throughout their evolution with potentially lethal plasma membrane injuries, including those caused by osmotic stress, by infection from bacterial toxins and parasites, and by mechanical and ischemic stress. The wounded cell can survive if a rapid repair response is mounted that restores boundary integrity. Calcium has been identified as the key trigger to activate an effective membrane repair response that utilizes exocytosis and endocytosis to repair a membrane tear, or remove a membrane pore. We here review what is known about the cellular and molecular mechanisms of membrane repair, with particular emphasis on the relevance of repair as it relates to disease pathologies. Collective evidence reveals membrane repair employs primitive yet robust molecular machinery, such as vesicle fusion and contractile rings, processes evolutionarily honed for simplicity and success. Yet to be fully understood is whether core membrane repair machinery exists in all cells, or whether evolutionary adaptation has resulted in multiple compensatory repair pathways that specialize in different tissues and cells within our body.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 319 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 21%
Researcher 42 13%
Student > Master 42 13%
Student > Bachelor 33 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 4%
Other 40 13%
Unknown 82 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 86 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 8%
Engineering 15 5%
Chemistry 13 4%
Other 43 13%
Unknown 89 28%
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 21 May 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Physiological Reviews
#1,344
of 1,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,726
of 277,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physiological Reviews
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 277,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.