↓ Skip to main content

The Enigmatic Role of C9ORF72 in Autophagy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
188 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
The Enigmatic Role of C9ORF72 in Autophagy
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00442
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa Nassif, Ute Woehlbier, Patricio A. Manque

Abstract

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a devastating neurodegenerative disease characterized by the loss of motor neurons resulting in a progressive and irreversible muscular paralysis. Advances in large-scale genetics and genomics have revealed intronic hexanucleotide repeat expansions in the gene encoding C9ORF72 as a main genetic cause of ALS and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), the second most common cause of early-onset dementia after Alzheimer's disease. Novel insights regarding the underlying pathogenic mechanisms of C9ORF72 seem to suggest a synergy of loss and gain of toxic function during disease. C9ORF72, thus far, has been found to be involved in homeostatic cellular pathways, such as actin dynamics, regulation of membrane trafficking, and macroautophagy. All these pathways have been found compromised in the pathogenesis of ALS. In this review, we aim to summarize recent findings on the function of C9ORF72, particularly in the macroautophagy pathway, hinting at a requirement to maintain the fine balance of macroautophagy to prevent neurodegeneration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 188 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 24%
Student > Bachelor 27 14%
Researcher 17 9%
Student > Master 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 9%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 41 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 48 26%
Neuroscience 36 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 41 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,918,049
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,088
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,203
of 327,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#91
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 327,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.