↓ Skip to main content

Ongoing Oxidative Stress Causes Subclinical Neuronal Dysfunction in the Recovery Phase of EAE

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Ongoing Oxidative Stress Causes Subclinical Neuronal Dysfunction in the Recovery Phase of EAE
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00092
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helena Radbruch, Daniel Bremer, Robert Guenther, Zoltan Cseresnyes, Randall Lindquist, Anja E. Hauser, Raluca Niesner

Abstract

Most multiple sclerosis (MS) patients develop over time a secondary progressive disease course, characterized histologically by axonal loss and atrophy. In early phases of the disease, focal inflammatory demyelination leads to functional impairment, but the mechanism of chronic progression in MS is still under debate. Reactive oxygen species generated by invading and resident central nervous system (CNS) macrophages have been implicated in mediating demyelination and axonal damage, but demyelination and neurodegeneration proceed even in the absence of obvious immune cell infiltration, during clinical recovery in chronic MS. Here, we employ intravital NAD(P)H fluorescence lifetime imaging to detect functional NADPH oxidases (NOX1-4, DUOX1, 2) and, thus, to identify the cellular source of oxidative stress in the CNS of mice affected by experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) in the remission phase of the disease. This directly affects neuronal function in vivo, as monitored by cellular calcium levels using intravital FRET-FLIM, providing a possible mechanism of disease progression in MS.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 17%
Neuroscience 6 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 9 21%
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 26 March 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#22,573
of 31,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,550
of 314,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#103
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,520 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 314,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.