↓ Skip to main content

E2F4 Promotes Neuronal Regeneration and Functional Recovery after Spinal Cord Injury in Zebrafish

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
E2F4 Promotes Neuronal Regeneration and Functional Recovery after Spinal Cord Injury in Zebrafish
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2016.00119
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shota Sasagawa, Yuhei Nishimura, Yuka Hayakawa, Soichiro Murakami, Yoshifumi Ashikawa, Mizuki Yuge, Shiko Okabe, Koki Kawaguchi, Reiko Kawase, Toshio Tanaka

Abstract

Mammals exhibit poor recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI), whereas non-mammalian vertebrates exhibit significant spontaneous recovery after SCI. The mechanisms underlying this difference have not been fully elucidated; therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate these mechanisms. Using comparative transcriptome analysis, we demonstrated that genes related to cell cycle were significantly enriched in the genes specifically dysregulated in zebrafish SCI. Most of the cell cycle-related genes dysregulated in zebrafish SCI were down-regulated, possibly through activation of e2f4. Using a larval zebrafish model of SCI, we demonstrated that the recovery of locomotive function and neuronal regeneration after SCI were significantly inhibited in zebrafish treated with an E2F4 inhibitor. These results suggest that activation of e2f4 after SCI may be responsible, at least in part, for the significant recovery in zebrafish. This provides novel insight into the lack of recovery after SCI in mammals and informs potential therapeutic strategies.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 36%
Student > Master 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Professor 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 32%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 9%
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 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,456,836
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#8,273
of 16,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,439
of 301,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#53
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 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 16,148 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 301,827 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 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.