↓ Skip to main content

Compensatory mechanisms in genetic models of neurodegeneration: are the mice better than humans?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Compensatory mechanisms in genetic models of neurodegeneration: are the mice better than humans?
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fncel.2015.00056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grzegorz Kreiner

Abstract

Neurodegenerative diseases are one of the main causes of mental and physical disabilities. Neurodegeneration has been estimated to begin many years before the first clinical symptoms manifest, and even a prompt diagnosis at this stage provides very little advantage for a more effective treatment as the currently available pharmacotherapies are based on disease symptomatology. The etiology of the majority of neurodegenerative diseases remains unknown, and even for those diseases caused by identified genetic mutations, the direct pathways from gene alteration to final cell death have not yet been fully elucidated. Advancements in genetic engineering have provided many transgenic mice that are used as an alternative to pharmacological models of neurodegenerative diseases. Surprisingly, even the models reiterating the same causative mutations do not fully recapitulate the inevitable neuronal loss, and some fail to even show phenotypic alterations, which suggests the possible existence of compensatory mechanisms. A better evaluation of these mechanisms may not only help us to explain why neurodegenerative diseases are mostly late-onset disorders in humans but may also provide new markers and targets for novel strategies designed to extend neuronal function and survival. The aim of this mini-review is to draw attention to this under-explored field in which investigations may reasonably contribute to unveiling hidden reserves in the organism.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 16 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 14 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 24 March 2015.
All research outputs
#15,327,280
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#2,664
of 4,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,426
of 258,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#66
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 258,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.