↓ Skip to main content

Laminin α2 Chain-Deficiency is Associated with microRNA Deregulation in Skeletal Muscle and Plasma

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Laminin α2 Chain-Deficiency is Associated with microRNA Deregulation in Skeletal Muscle and Plasma
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00155
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johan Holmberg, Azra Alajbegovic, Kinga Izabela Gawlik, Linda Elowsson, Madeleine Durbeej

Abstract

microRNAs (miRNAs) are widespread regulators of gene expression, but little is known of their potential roles in congenital muscular dystrophy type 1A (MDC1A). MDC1A is a severe form of muscular dystrophy caused by mutations in the gene encoding laminin α2 chain. To gain insight into the pathophysiological roles of miRNAs associated with MDC1A pathology, laminin α2 chain-deficient mice were evaluated by quantitative PCR. We demonstrate that expression of muscle-specific miR-1, miR-133a, and miR-206 is deregulated in laminin α2 chain-deficient muscle. Furthermore, expression of miR-223 and miR-21, associated with immune cell infiltration and fibrosis, respectively, is altered. Finally, we show that plasma levels of muscle-specific miRNAs are markedly elevated in laminin α2 chain-deficient mice and partially normalized in response to proteasome inhibition therapy. Altogether, our data suggest important roles for miRNAs in MDC1A pathology and we propose plasma levels of muscle-specific miRNAs as promising biomarkers for the progression of MDC1A.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 16%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 20%
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 21 August 2014.
All research outputs
#18,376,056
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#4,019
of 4,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,325
of 227,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#56
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,749 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 227,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.