↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Autophagy dysfunction upregulates beta-amyloid peptides via enhancing the activity of γ-secretase complex

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Autophagy dysfunction upregulates beta-amyloid peptides via enhancing the activity of γ-secretase complex
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s84755
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhiyou Cai, Yingjun Zhou, Zhou Liu, Zunyu Ke, Fuming Tian

Abstract

Numerous studies have shown that autophagy failure plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease, including increased expression of beta-amyloid (Aβ) protein and the dysfunction of Aβ clearance. To further evaluate the role of autophagy in Alzheimer's disease, the present study was implemented to investigate the effects of autophagy on α-secretase, β-secretase, or γ-secretase, and observe the effects of autophagy on autophagic clearance markers. These results showed that both autophagy inhibitor and inducer enhanced the activity of α-, β-, and γ-secretases, and Aβ production. Autophagy inhibitor may more activate γ-secretase and promote Aβ production and accumulation than its inducer. Both autophagy inhibitor and inducer had no influence on Aβ clearance. Hence, autophagy inhibitor may activate γ-secretase and promote Aβ production and accumulation, but has no influence on Aβ clearance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 24%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 30%
Neuroscience 7 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 3 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 September 2015.
All research outputs
#2,879,514
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#388
of 2,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,711
of 264,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#10
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 264,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.