↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Vaccination with Altered Peptide Ligand on Chronic Pain in Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis, an Animal Model of Multiple Sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Effects of Vaccination with Altered Peptide Ligand on Chronic Pain in Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis, an Animal Model of Multiple Sclerosis
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2013.00168
Pubmed ID
Authors

David H. Tian, Chamini J. Perera, Vasso Apostolopoulos, Gila Moalem-Taylor

Abstract

Neuropathic pain is a chronic symptom of multiple sclerosis (MS) and affects nearly half of all MS sufferers. A key instigator of this pain is the pro-inflammatory response in MS. We investigated the behavioral effects of immunization with a mutant peptide of myelin basic protein (MBP), termed altered peptide ligand (APL), known to initiate immune deviation from a pro-inflammatory state to an anti-inflammatory response in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), an animal model of MS. Male and female Lewis rats were injected with vehicle control or with varying doses of 50 or 100 μg guinea pig MBP in combination with or without APL. APL-treated animals established significantly lower disease severity compared to encephalitogenic MBP-treated animals. Animals with EAE developed mechanical, but not thermal pain hypersensitivity. Mechanical pain sensitivities were either improved or normalized during periods of clinical disease in male and female APL-treated animals as compared to the encephalitogenic group. No significant changes to thermal latency were observed upon co-immunization with APL. Together these data indicate that APL ameliorates disease states and selectively mediates an analgesic effect on EAE animals.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Professor 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 17%
Neuroscience 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 6 25%
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 29 October 2013.
All research outputs
#20,207,295
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,638
of 11,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,792
of 280,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#117
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.