↓ Skip to main content

Reg-2, A Downstream Signaling Protein in the Ciliary Neurotrophic Factor Survival Pathway, Alleviates Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Reg-2, A Downstream Signaling Protein in the Ciliary Neurotrophic Factor Survival Pathway, Alleviates Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnana.2016.00050
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hong Jiang, Ke-Wei Tian, Fan Zhang, Beibei Wang, Shu Han

Abstract

Ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF), originally described as a neurocytokine that could support the survival of neurons, has been recently found to alleviate demyelination, prevent axon loss, and improve functional recovery in a rat model of acute experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE). However, poor penetration into the brain parenchyma and unfavorable side effects limit the utility of CNTF. Here, we evaluated the therapeutic potential of a protein downstream of CNTF, regeneration gene protein 2 (Reg-2). Using multiple morphological, molecular biology, and electrophysiological methods to assess neuroinflammation, axonal loss, demyelination, and functional impairment, we observed that Reg-2 and CNTF exert similar effects in the acute phase of EAE. Both treatments attenuated axonal loss and demyelination, improved neuronal survival, and produced functional improvement. With a smaller molecular weight and improved penetration into the brain parenchyma, Reg-2 may be a useful substitute for CNTF therapy in EAE and multiple sclerosis (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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 22%
Researcher 4 22%
Other 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 28%
Neuroscience 3 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 17%
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 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,456,836
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#924
of 1,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,439
of 301,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#34
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 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 1,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 301,827 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 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.