↓ Skip to main content

Pathological Impact of the Interaction of NO and CO with Mitochondria in Critical Care Diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, December 2017
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
11 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
Pathological Impact of the Interaction of NO and CO with Mitochondria in Critical Care Diseases
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00223
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Catharina Duvigneau, Andrey V. Kozlov

Abstract

The outcome of patients with critical care diseases (CCD) such as sepsis, hemorrhagic shock, or trauma is often associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. In turn, mitochondrial dysfunction is frequently induced upon interaction with nitric oxide (NO) and carbon monoxide (CO), two gaseous messengers formed in the body by NO synthase (NOS) and heme oxygenase (HO), respectively. Both, NOS and HO are upregulated in the majority of CCD. A multitude of factors that are associated with the pathology of CCD exert a potential to interfere with mitochondrial function or the effects of the gaseous messengers. From these, four major factors can be identified that directly influence the effects of NO and CO on mitochondria and which are defined by (i) local concentration of NO and/or CO, (ii) tissue oxygenation, (iii) redox status of cells in terms of facilitating or inhibiting reactive oxygen species formation, and (iv) the degree of tissue acidosis. The combination of these four factors in specific pathological situations defines whether effects of NO and CO are beneficial or deleterious.

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 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 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Professor 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 9%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,923,510
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,677
of 5,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,869
of 440,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#51
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 440,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.