↓ Skip to main content

Which pathways trigger the role of complement in ischaemia/reperfusion injury?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Which pathways trigger the role of complement in ischaemia/reperfusion injury?
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2012.00341
Pubmed ID
Authors

Conrad A. Farrar, Elham Asgari, Wilhelm J. Schwaeble, Steven H. Sacks

Abstract

Investigations into the role of complement in ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury have identified common effector mechanisms that depend on the production of C5a and C5b-9 through the cleavage of C3. These studies have also defined an important role for C3 synthesized within ischemic kidney. Less clear however is the mechanism of complement activation that leads to the cleavage of C3 in ischemic tissues and to what extent the potential trigger mechanisms are organ dependent - an important question which informs the development of therapies that are more selective in their ability to limit the injury, yet preserve the other functions of complement where possible. Here we consider recent evidence for each of the three major pathways of complement activation (classical, lectin, and alternative) as mediators of I/R injury, and in particular highlight the role of lectin molecules that increasingly seem to underpin the injury in different organ models and in addition reveal unusual routes of complement activation that contribute to organ damage.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 2%
Poland 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 54 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 28%
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Professor 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 12%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 9 16%
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 19 November 2012.
All research outputs
#22,963,239
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#27,856
of 32,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,454
of 251,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#161
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 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 32,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. 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 251,039 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 275 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.