↓ Skip to main content

Urinary Extracellular Vesicles as Source of Biomarkers in Kidney Diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
4 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 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
Urinary Extracellular Vesicles as Source of Biomarkers in Kidney Diseases
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Gámez-Valero, Sara Inés Lozano-Ramos, Ioana Bancu, Ricardo Lauzurica-Valdemoros, Francesc E. Borràs

Abstract

Most cells physiologically release vesicles as way of intercellular communication. The so-called Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) include exosomes, ectosomes, and apoptotic bodies, which basically differ in their composition and subcellular origin. Specifically, EVs found in urine reflect the state of the urinary system, from podocytes to renal-tubular cells, thus making them an excellent source of samples for the study of kidney physiology and pathology. Several groups have focused on defining biomarkers of kidney-related disorders, from graft rejection to metabolic syndromes. So far, the lack of a standard protocol for EVs isolation precludes the possibility of a proper comparison among the different biomarkers proposed in the literature, stressing the need for validation of these biomarkers not only in larger cohorts of patients but also considering the different methods for EVs isolation. In this review, we aim to gather the current knowledge about EVs-related biomarkers in kidney diseases, with a special emphasis in the methods used to date for EVs enrichment, and discussing the need for more specific protocols of EV isolation in clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 170 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 20%
Researcher 33 19%
Student > Master 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 27 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 7%
Engineering 9 5%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 38 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 July 2021.
All research outputs
#4,382,932
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#4,806
of 32,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,760
of 363,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#20
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 363,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.