↓ Skip to main content

Early detection of cryptic memory and glucose uptake deficits in pre-pathological APP mice

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Early detection of cryptic memory and glucose uptake deficits in pre-pathological APP mice
Published in
Nature Communications, June 2016
DOI 10.1038/ncomms11761
Pubmed ID
Authors

V. Beglopoulos, J. Tulloch, A. D. Roe, S. Daumas, L. Ferrington, R. Watson, Z. Fan, B. T. Hyman, P. A. T. Kelly, F. Bard, R. G. M. Morris

Abstract

Earlier diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer's disease would greatly benefit from the identification of biomarkers at the prodromal stage. Using a prominent animal model of aspects of the disease, we here show using clinically relevant methodologies that very young, pre-pathological PDAPP mice, which overexpress mutant human amyloid precursor protein in the brain, exhibit two cryptic deficits that are normally undetected using standard methods of assessment. Despite learning a spatial memory task normally and displaying normal brain glucose uptake, they display faster forgetting after a long delay following performance to a criterion, together with a strong impairment of brain glucose uptake at the time of attempted memory retrieval. Preliminary observations suggest that these deficits, likely caused by an impairment in systems consolidation, could be rescued by immunotherapy with an anti-β-amyloid antibody. Our data suggest a biomarker strategy for the early detection of β-amyloid-related abnormalities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 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 > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Student > Master 6 16%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Professor 2 5%
Other 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 29%
Neuroscience 11 29%
Unspecified 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Other 5 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 129. 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 22 August 2018.
All research outputs
#95,932
of 12,220,965 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#1,592
of 19,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,605
of 277,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#22
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,220,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 277,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.