↓ Skip to main content

Reduction of connexin43 in human endothelial progenitor cells impairs the angiogenic potential

Overview of attention for article published in Angiogenesis, January 2013
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 (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Reduction of connexin43 in human endothelial progenitor cells impairs the angiogenic potential
Published in
Angiogenesis, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10456-013-9335-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hsueh-Hsiao Wang, Cheng-Huang Su, Yih-Jer Wu, Jiun-Yi Li, Ya-Ming Tseng, Yi-Chun Lin, Chin-Ling Hsieh, Cheng-Ho Tsai, Hung-I Yeh

Abstract

Our previous work showed that arsenic trioxide down-regulated Cx43 and attenuated the angiogenic potential of human late endothelial progenitor cells (EPC). However, the relation between Cx43 and angiogenic activity of the EPC remained unclear. In the study, human late EPC were treated with siRNA specific to Cx43 (Cx43siRNA). The expression profiles as well as activity of the treated cells were examined. In parallel, the angiogenic potential of human EPC treated with Cx43siRNA was evaluated using murine hind limb ischemic model. The results showed that, in the EPC treated with Cx43siRNA, the activity of migration, proliferation, and angiogenic potential were attenuated, accompanied by reduction in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression. In hind limb ischemia mice, EPC treated with Cx43siRNA lost the therapeutic angiogenic potential. VEGF supplementation partially recovered the activity impaired by Cx43 down-regulation. In conclusion, reduced Cx43 expression per se in the EPC causes decreased expression of VEGF and impaired angiogenic potential of the cells. Prevention of Cx43 reduction is a potential target to maintain the angiogenic potential of the EPC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Unspecified 3 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 16%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Other 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 42%
Unspecified 4 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 21%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 1 5%

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 29 January 2013.
All research outputs
#7,684,059
of 12,341,652 outputs
Outputs from Angiogenesis
#178
of 315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,945
of 283,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Angiogenesis
#5
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,341,652 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 315 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 283,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 66% of its contemporaries.