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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
PLPP/CIN Regulates Seizure Activity by the Differential Modulation of Calsenilin Binding to GluN1 and Kv4.2 in Mice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnmol.2017.00303 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ji-Eun Kim, Hye-Won Hyun, Su-Ji Min, Duk-Shin Lee, A Ran Jeon, Min Ju Kim, Tae-Cheon Kang |
| Abstract |
Calsenilin (CSEN) binds to Kv4.2 (an A-type K(+) channel) as well as N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR), and modulates their activities. However, the regulatory mechanisms for CSEN-binding to Kv4.2 or NMDAR remain elusive. Here, we demonstrate the novel role of pyridoxal-5'-phosphate phosphatase/chronophin (PLPP/CIN), one of the cofilin-mediated F-actin regulators, in the CSEN binding to Kv4.2 or GluN1 (an NMDAR subunit). PLPP/CIN dephosphorylated CSEN in competition with casein kinase 1, independent of cofilin dephosphorylation. As compared to wild-type mice, PLPP/CIN transgenic (PLPP/CIN(Tg)) mice showed the enhancement of Kv4.2-CSEN binding, but the reduction in CSEN-GluN1 binding. In addition, PLPP/CIN(Tg) mice exhibited the higher intensity (severity), duration and progression of seizures, but the longer latency of seizure on-set in response to kainic acid. PLPP/CIN knockout mice reversed these phenomena. Therefore, we suggest that PLPP/CIN-mediated CSEN dephosphorylation may play an important role in the functional coupling of NMDAR and Kv4.2, which regulates the neuronal excitability. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 2 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
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 15 August 2020.
All research outputs
#16,294,872
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#1,836
of 3,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,960
of 329,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#52
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,374 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 329,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.