↓ Skip to main content

Cell Death-Autophagy Loop and Glutamate-Glutamine Cycle in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Cell Death-Autophagy Loop and Glutamate-Glutamine Cycle in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Published in
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnmol.2017.00231
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shu Yuan, Zhong-Wei Zhang, Zi-Lin Li

Abstract

Although we know that amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is correlated with the glutamate-mediated corticomotor neuronal hyperexcitability, detailed ALS pathology remains largely unexplained. While a number of drugs have been developed, no cure exists so far. Here, we propose a hypothesis of neuronal cell death-incomplete autophagy positive-feedback loop-and summarize the role of the neuron-astrocyte glutamate-glutamine cycle in ALS. The disruption of these two cycles might ideally retard ALS progression. Cerebrovascular injuries (such as multiple embolization sessions and strokes) induce neuronal cell death and the subsequent autophagy. ALS impairs autophagosome-lysosome fusion and leads to magnified cell death. Trehalose rescues this impaired fusion step, significantly delaying the onset of the disease, although it does not affect the duration of the disease. Therefore, trehalose might be a prophylactic drug for ALS. Given that a major part of neuronal glutamate is converted from glutamine through neuronal glutaminase (GA), GA inhibitors may decrease the neuronal glutamate accumulation, and, therefore, might be therapeutic ALS drugs. Of these, Ebselen is the most promising one with strong antioxidant properties.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 22 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 10 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 21 41%
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 09 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,565,641
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#2,282
of 2,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,901
of 314,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#86
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 314,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.