↓ Skip to main content

Intestinal Autophagy and Its Pharmacological Control in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Intestinal Autophagy and Its Pharmacological Control in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00695
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ping Ke, Bo-Zong Shao, Zhe-Qi Xu, Xiong-Wen Chen, Chong Liu

Abstract

Intestinal mucosal barrier, mainly composed of the intestinal mucus layer and the epithelium, plays a critical role in nutrient absorption as well as protection from pathogenic microorganisms. It is widely acknowledged that the damage of intestinal mucosal barrier or the disturbance of microorganism balance in the intestinal tract contributes greatly to the pathogenesis and progression of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which mainly includes Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Autophagy is an evolutionarily conserved catabolic process that involves degradation of protein aggregates and damaged organelles for recycling. The roles of autophagy in the pathogenesis and progression of IBD have been increasingly studied. This present review mainly describes the roles of autophagy of Paneth cells, macrophages, and goblet cells in IBD, and finally, several potential therapeutic strategies for IBD taking advantage of autophagy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 25%
Student > Master 11 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 23%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 12 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#15,375
of 31,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,039
of 422,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#191
of 346 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,516 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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 422,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 346 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.