| Title |
Total saponin of Dioscoreae hypoglaucae rhizoma ameliorates streptozotocin-induced diabetic nephropathy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s99670 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Changrun Guo, Gang Ding, Wenzhe Huang, Zhenzhong Wang, Zhaoqing Meng, Wei Xiao |
| Abstract |
Diabetic nephropathy has become the most common cause of morbidity and mortality in diabetic patients. Therefore, there is an urgent need for more effective and safer drugs for use in this condition. The aims of this study were to investigate the ameliorative effects of total saponin of Dioscoreae hypoglaucae rhizoma (TSD) on diabetic nephropathy and to explore the potential underlying mechanism(s). Rats with streptozotocin-induced diabetes were orally treated with TSD at 40, 80, and 160 mg/kg/d for 12 weeks. At the end of the treatment, blood, urine, and kidneys were collected for biochemical and histological examination. The results demonstrated that TSD significantly decreased the fasting blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, urinary protein, serum creatinine, and blood urea nitrogen levels in diabetic rats. The results of histological examinations showed that TSD ameliorated glomerular and tubular pathological changes in diabetic rats. Furthermore, TSD significantly prevented oxidative stress and reduced the renal levels of advanced glycation end products, transforming growth factor-β1, connective tissue growth factor, and tumor necrosis factor-α. This study demonstrated the renoprotective effects of TSD in experimental diabetic nephropathy via a number of different mechanisms. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Researcher | 1 | 4% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 22% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
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 17 November 2020.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,105
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,077
of 406,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#44
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 406,425 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 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.