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 |
Evolving Insights on Metabolism, Autophagy, and Epigenetics in Liver Myofibroblasts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2016.00191 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zeribe C. Nwosu, Hamed Alborzinia, Stefan Wölfl, Steven Dooley, Yan Liu |
| Abstract |
Liver myofibroblasts (MFB) are crucial mediators of extracellular matrix (ECM) deposition in liver fibrosis. They arise mainly from hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) upon a process termed "activation." To a lesser extent, and depending on the cause of liver damage, portal fibroblasts, mesothelial cells, and fibrocytes may also contribute to the MFB population. Targeting MFB to reduce liver fibrosis is currently an area of intense research. Unfortunately, a clog in the wheel of antifibrotic therapies is the fact that although MFB are known to mediate scar formation, and participate in liver inflammatory response, many of their molecular portraits are currently unknown. In this review, we discuss recent understanding of MFB in health and diseases, focusing specifically on three evolving research fields: metabolism, autophagy, and epigenetics. We have emphasized on therapeutic prospects where applicable and mentioned techniques for use in MFB studies. Subsequently, we highlighted uncharted territories in MFB research to help direct future efforts aimed at bridging gaps in current knowledge. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
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 18 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,376,252
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#6,700
of 13,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,610
of 339,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#76
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 339,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 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.