↓ Skip to main content

Metabolomic Analysis by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy as a New Approach to Understanding Inflammation and Monitoring of Pharmacological Therapy in Children and Young Adults With Cystic…

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Metabolomic Analysis by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy as a New Approach to Understanding Inflammation and Monitoring of Pharmacological Therapy in Children and Young Adults With Cystic Fibrosis
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00595
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo Montuschi, Vincenzina Lucidi, Debora Paris, Enza Montemitro, Rugia Shohreh, Nadia Mores, Dominique Melck, Giuseppe Santini, Fabio Majo, Andrea Motta

Abstract

15-F2t-Isoprostane, a reliable biomarker of oxidative stress, has been found elevated in exhaled breath condensate (EBC), a non-invasive technique for sampling of airway secretions, in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Azithromycin has antioxidant properties in experimental models of CF, but its effects on oxidative stress in CF patients are largely unknown. Primary objective of this pilot, proof-of-concept, prospective, parallel group, pharmacological study, was investigating the potential antioxidant effects of azithromycin in CF patients as reflected by EBC 15-F2t-isoprostane. Secondary objectives included studying the effect of azithromycin on EBC and serum metabolic profiles, and on serum 15-F2t-isoprostane. In CF patients who were on maintenance treatment with oral vitamin E (200 UI once daily), treatment with oral azithromycin (250 or 500 mg depending on body weight) plus vitamin E (400 UI once daily) (group A) (n = 24) or oral vitamin E alone (400 UI once daily) (group B) (n = 21) was not associated with changes in EBC 15-F2t-isoprostane concentrations compared with baseline values after 8-weeks treatment or 2 weeks after treatment suspension. There was no between-group difference in post-treatment EBC 15-F2t-isoprostane. Likewise, no within- or between-group differences in serum 15-F2t-isoprostane concentrations were observed in either study group. NMR spectroscopy-based metabolomics of EBC shows that suspension of both azithromycin plus vitamin E and vitamin E alone has a striking effect on metabolic profiles in EBC. Between-group comparisons show that EBC metabolite distribution after treatment and 2 weeks after treatment suspension is different. Quantitative differences in ethanol, saturated fatty acids, acetate, acetoin/acetone, and methanol are responsible for these differences. Our study was unable to show antioxidant effect of azithromycin as add-on treatment with doubling the dose of oral vitamin E as reflected by 15-F2t-isoprostane concentrations in EBC. Add-on therapy with azithromycin itself does not induce EBC metabolite changes, but its suspension is associated with EBC metabolic profiles that are different from those observed after vitamin E suspension. The pathophysiological and therapeutic implications of these findings in patients with stable CF are unknown and require further research. Preliminary data suggest that EBC NMR-based metabolomics might be used for assessing the effects of pharmacological treatment suspension in stable CF patients.

X Demographics

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Researcher 6 16%
Other 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,011,732
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#5,343
of 16,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,271
of 328,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#121
of 386 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 328,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 386 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 65% of its contemporaries.