↓ Skip to main content

Development of novel treatment strategies for inflammatory diseases—similarities and divergence between glucocorticoids and GILZ

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

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
Development of novel treatment strategies for inflammatory diseases—similarities and divergence between glucocorticoids and GILZ
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2014.00169
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qiang Cheng, Eric Morand, Yuan Hang Yang

Abstract

Glucocorticoids (GC) are the most commonly prescribed medications for patients with inflammatory diseases, despite their well-known adverse metabolic effects. Previously, it was understood that the anti-inflammatory effects of the GC/GC receptor (GR) complex were mediated via transrepression, whilst the adverse metabolic effects were mediated via transactivation. It has recently become clear that this "divergent actions" paradigm of GC actions is likely insufficient. It has been reported that the GC/GR-mediated transactivation also contributes to the anti-inflammatory actions of GC, via up-regulation of key anti-inflammatory proteins. One of these is glucocorticoid-induced leucine zipper (GILZ), which inhibits inflammatory responses in a number of important immune cell lineages in vitro, as well as in animal models of inflammatory diseases in vivo. This review aims to compare the GILZ and GC effects on specific cell lineages and animal models of inflammatory diseases. The fact that the actions of GILZ permit a GILZ-based gene therapy to lack GC-like adverse effects presents the potential for development of new strategies to treat patients with inflammatory diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 > Master 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 16%
Neuroscience 7 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 9 18%
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 17 July 2014.
All research outputs
#20,233,066
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#9,983
of 16,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,178
of 204,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#54
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,009 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 204,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.