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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Protection of Primary Dopaminergic Midbrain Neurons by GPR139 Agonists Supports Different Mechanisms of MPP+ and Rotenone Toxicity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fncel.2016.00164 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kirsten Bayer Andersen, Jens Leander Johansen, Morten Hentzer, Garrick Paul Smith, Gunnar P. H. Dietz |
| Abstract |
The G-protein coupled receptor 139 (GPR139) is expressed specifically in the brain in areas of relevance for motor control. GPR139 function and signal transduction pathways are elusive, and results in the literature are even contradictory. Here, we examined the potential neuroprotective effect of GPR139 agonism in primary culture models of dopaminergic (DA) neuronal degeneration. We find that in vitro GPR139 agonists protected primary mesencephalic DA neurons against 1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium (MPP(+))-mediated degeneration. Protection was concentration-dependent and could be blocked by a GPR139 antagonist. However, the protection of DA neurons was not found against rotenone or 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA) mediated degeneration. Our results support differential mechanisms of toxicity for those substances commonly used in Parkinson's disease (PD) models and potential for GPR139 agonists in neuroprotection. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,132,192
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#665
of 4,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,093
of 351,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#7
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 351,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.