↓ Skip to main content

Hypothesis of K+-Recycling Defect Is Not a Primary Deafness Mechanism for Cx26 (GJB2) Deficiency

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Hypothesis of K+-Recycling Defect Is Not a Primary Deafness Mechanism for Cx26 (GJB2) Deficiency
Published in
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnmol.2017.00162
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hong-Bo Zhao

Abstract

K(+)-recycling defect is a long-standing hypothesis for deafness mechanism of Connexin26 (Cx26, GJB2) mutations, which cause the most common hereditary deafness and are responsible for >50% of nonsyndromic hearing loss. The hypothesis states that Cx26 deficiency may disrupt inner ear gap junctions and compromise sinking and recycling of expelled K(+) ions after hair cell excitation, causing accumulation of K(+)-ions in the extracellular space around hair cells producing K(+)-toxicity, which eventually induces hair cell degeneration and hearing loss. However, this hypothesis has never been directly evidenced, even though it has been widely referred to. Recently, more and more experiments demonstrate that this hypothesis may not be a deafness mechanism underlying Cx26 deficiency. In this review article, we summarized recent advances on the K(+)-recycling and mechanisms underlying Cx26 deficiency induced hearing loss. The mechanisms underlying K(+)-sinking, which is the first step for K(+)-recycling in the cochlea, and Cx26 deficiency induced cochlear developmental disorders, which are responsible for Cx26 deficiency induced congenital deafness and associated with disruption of permeability of inner ear gap junctional channels to miRNAs, are also summarized and discussed.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Unspecified 4 12%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 18%
Unspecified 4 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 12 36%
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 13 June 2017.
All research outputs
#19,013,042
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#2,272
of 3,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,466
of 317,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#87
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 317,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.