↓ Skip to main content

The Programming Power of the Placenta

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
228 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
The Programming Power of the Placenta
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda N. Sferruzzi-Perri, Emily J. Camm

Abstract

Size at birth is a critical determinant of life expectancy, and is dependent primarily on the placental supply of nutrients. However, the placenta is not just a passive organ for the materno-fetal transfer of nutrients and oxygen. Studies show that the placenta can adapt morphologically and functionally to optimize substrate supply, and thus fetal growth, under adverse intrauterine conditions. These adaptations help meet the fetal drive for growth, and their effectiveness will determine the amount and relative proportions of specific metabolic substrates supplied to the fetus at different stages of development. This flow of nutrients will ultimately program physiological systems at the gene, cell, tissue, organ, and system levels, and inadequacies can cause permanent structural and functional changes that lead to overt disease, particularly with increasing age. This review examines the environmental regulation of the placental phenotype with particular emphasis on the impact of maternal nutritional challenges and oxygen scarcity in mice, rats and guinea pigs. It also focuses on the effects of such conditions on fetal growth and the developmental programming of disease postnatally. A challenge for future research is to link placental structure and function with clinical phenotypes in the offspring.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 228 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 14%
Student > Bachelor 27 12%
Student > Master 26 11%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 9%
Other 42 18%
Unknown 59 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 70 31%
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 26 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,836,670
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#8,430
of 14,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,103
of 300,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#101
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 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 14,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 300,818 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.