↓ Skip to main content

Metabolic Linkage and Correlations to Storage Capacity in Erythrocytes from Glucose 6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase-Deficient Donors

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Metabolic Linkage and Correlations to Storage Capacity in Erythrocytes from Glucose 6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase-Deficient Donors
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00248
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie A. Reisz, Vassilis L. Tzounakas, Travis Nemkov, Artemis I. Voulgaridou, Issidora S. Papassideri, Anastasios G. Kriebardis, Angelo D’Alessandro, Marianna H. Antonelou

Abstract

In glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, decreased NADPH regeneration in the pentose phosphate pathway and subnormal levels of reduced glutathione result in insufficient antioxidant defense, increased susceptibility of red blood cells (RBCs) to oxidative stress, and acute hemolysis following exposure to pro-oxidant drugs and infections. Despite the fact that redox disequilibrium is a prominent feature of RBC storage lesion, it has been reported that the G6PD-deficient RBCs store well, at least in respect to energy metabolism, but their overall metabolic phenotypes and molecular linkages to the storability profile are scarcely investigated. We performed UHPLC-MS metabolomics analyses of weekly sampled RBC concentrates from G6PD sufficient and deficient donors, stored in citrate phosphate dextrose/saline adenine glucose mannitol from day 0 to storage day 42, followed by statistical and bioinformatics integration of the data. Other than previously reported alterations in glycolysis, metabolomics analyses revealed bioactive lipids, free fatty acids, bile acids, amino acids, and purines as top variables discriminating RBC concentrates for G6PD-deficient donors. Two-way ANOVA showed significant changes in the storage-dependent variation in fumarate, one-carbon, and sulfur metabolism, glutathione homeostasis, and antioxidant defense (including urate) components in G6PD-deficient vs. sufficient donors. The levels of free fatty acids and their oxidized derivatives, as well as those of membrane-associated plasticizers were significantly lower in G6PD-deficient units in comparison to controls. By using the strongest correlations between in vivo and ex vivo metabolic and physiological parameters, consecutively present throughout the storage period, several interactomes were produced that revealed an interesting interplay between redox, energy, and hemolysis variables, which may be further associated with donor-specific differences in the post-transfusion performance of G6PD-deficient RBCs. The metabolic phenotypes of G6PD-deficient donors recapitulate the basic storage lesion profile that leads to loss of metabolic linkage and rewiring. Donor-related issues affect the storability of RBCs even in the narrow context of this donor subgroup in a way likely relevant to transfusion medicine.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 9%
Computer Science 2 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 7 30%
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 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,488,947
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,056
of 5,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,810
of 443,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#51
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 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 5,792 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 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 443,312 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 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.