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 |
Role of MicroRNAs in innate neuroprotection mechanisms due to preconditioning of the brain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2015.00118 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eva M. Jimenez-Mateos |
| Abstract |
Insults to the brain that are sub-threshold for damage activate endogenous protective pathways, which can temporarily protect the brain against a subsequent harmful episode. This mechanism has been named as tolerance and its protective effects have been shown in experimental models of ischemia and epilepsy. The preconditioning-stimulus can be a short period of ischemia or mild seizures induced by low doses of convulsant drugs. Gene-array profiling has shown that both ischemic and epileptic tolerance feature large-scale gene down-regulation but the mechanism are unknown. MicroRNAs are a class of small non-coding RNAs of ~20-22 nucleotides length which regulate gene expression at a post-transcriptional level via mRNA degradation or inhibition of protein translation. MicroRNAs have been shown to be regulated after non-harmful and harmful stimuli in the brain and to contribute to neuroprotective mechanisms. This review focuses on the role of microRNAs in the development of tolerance following ischemic or epileptic preconditioning. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 27% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Professor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 6 | 20% |
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 May 2015.
All research outputs
#17,283,763
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,065
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,656
of 279,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#97
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 279,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.