↓ Skip to main content

Arterial Pulsations cannot Drive Intramural Periarterial Drainage: Significance for Aβ Drainage

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Arterial Pulsations cannot Drive Intramural Periarterial Drainage: Significance for Aβ Drainage
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00475
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra K. Diem, Matthew MacGregor Sharp, Maureen Gatherer, Neil W. Bressloff, Roxana O. Carare, Giles Richardson

Abstract

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and to date there is no cure or efficient prophylaxis. The cognitive decline correlates with the accumulation of amyloid-β (Aβ) in the walls of capillaries and arteries. Our group has demonstrated that interstitial fluid and Aβ are eliminated from the brain along the basement membranes of capillaries and arteries, the intramural periarterial drainage (IPAD) pathway. With advancing age and arteriosclerosis, the stiffness of arterial walls, this pathway fails in its function and Aβ accumulates in the walls of arteries. In this study we tested the hypothesis that arterial pulsations drive IPAD and that a valve mechanism ensures the net drainage in a direction opposite to that of the blood flow. This hypothesis was tested using a mathematical model of the drainage mechanism. We demonstrate firstly that arterial pulsations are not strong enough to produce drainage velocities comparable to experimental observations. Secondly, we demonstrate that a valve mechanism such as directional permeability of the IPAD pathway is necessary to achieve a net reverse flow. The mathematical simulation results are confirmed by assessing the pattern of IPAD in mice using pulse modulators, showing no significant alteration of IPAD. Our results indicate that forces other than the cardiac pulsations are responsible for efficient IPAD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 23%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Professor 8 9%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 16 18%
Engineering 16 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Mathematics 4 4%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 22 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,691
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,236
of 324,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#107
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 324,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.