↓ Skip to main content

The role of glial cells and the complement system in retinal diseases and Alzheimer’s disease: common neural degeneration mechanisms

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
The role of glial cells and the complement system in retinal diseases and Alzheimer’s disease: common neural degeneration mechanisms
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00221-014-4078-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Harvey, Szonya Durant

Abstract

Many age-related degenerative diseases of the central nervous system (CNS) increasingly appear to have similarities in their underlying causes. By applying knowledge between disorders, and in particular between degenerative diseases of different components of the CNS (e.g. the eye and the brain), we can begin to elucidate general mechanisms of neural degeneration. Age-related macular degeneration and glaucoma, two diseases of retinal neurons, which have recently been discussed in view of their common mechanisms with Alzheimer's disease, highlight this perspective. This review discusses the common roles of the complement system (an immunological system) and glial cells (providing, amongst other functions, trophic support to neurons) in these three disorders. A number of facets of these systems would seem to be involved in the mechanisms of degeneration in at least two of the three diseases considered here. Regulatory proteins of the complement system (such as factor H), neurotrophin levels, and the interaction of microglia with the complement system in particular may be general to all three presentations of neural degeneration. Investigating the functioning of these fundamental systems across different diseases exemplifies the importance of considering advances in knowledge across a wider base than specific disease pathology. This may give insights both for understanding the function of these supporting systems and providing an avenue for developing future therapeutic targets general to neural degenerative diseases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 31%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Researcher 7 14%
Unspecified 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Other 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 18%
Unspecified 6 12%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Other 7 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 June 2015.
All research outputs
#6,572,013
of 12,991,343 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#948
of 2,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,716
of 200,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#13
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,991,343 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,246 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 200,846 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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.