↓ Skip to main content

Why do they die? Comparison of selected aspects of organ injury and dysfunction in mice surviving and dying in acute abdominal sepsis

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
3 patents
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Why do they die? Comparison of selected aspects of organ injury and dysfunction in mice surviving and dying in acute abdominal sepsis
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40635-015-0048-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Drechsler, Katrin M Weixelbaumer, Adelheid Weidinger, Pierre Raeven, Anna Khadem, Heinz Redl, Martijn van Griensven, Soheyl Bahrami, Daniel Remick, Andrey Kozlov, Marcin F Osuchowski

Abstract

The mechanisms of sepsis mortality remain undefined. While there is some evidence of organ damage, it is not clear whether this damage alone is sufficient to cause death. Therefore, we aimed to examine contribution of organ injury/dysfunction to early deaths in the mouse abdominal sepsis. Female OF-1 mice underwent either medium-severity cecal ligation and puncture (CLP-Only) or non-lethal CLP-ODam (CLP with cisplatin/carbontetrachloride to induce survivable hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity). In the first experiment, blood was collected daily from survivors (SUR; CLP-Only and CLP-ODam groups) or until early death (DIED; CLP-Only). In the second experiment (CLP-Only), early outcome was prospectively predicted based on body temperature (BT) and pairs of mice predicted to survive (P-SUR) and die (P-DIE) were sacrificed post-CLP. The overall magnitude of organ injury/dysfunction was compared in retrospectively and prospectively stratified mice. At day 7 post-CLP, survival in CLP-Only was 48%, while CLP-ODam was non-lethal. In CLP-Only mice within 24 h of death, urea increased to 78 (versus 40 mg/dl in SUR), ALT to 166 (vs. 108 U/l), LDH to 739 (vs. 438 U/l) and glucose declined to 43 (vs. 62 mg/dl). In CLP-ODam, hypoglycemia was exacerbated (by 1.5-fold) and ALT and LDH were 20- and 8-fold higher versus DIED (CLP-Only) mice. In CLP-Only, predicted deaths (P-DIE) were preceded by a significant rise only in cystatin C (268 vs. 170 ng/ml in P-SUR) but not in creatinine and troponin I. Respiratory function of mitochondria in the liver and kidney of P-SUR and P-DIE CLP-Only mice was not impaired (vs. controls) and ATP level in organs remained similar among all groups. Histologic injury scores in the liver, kidney, heart and lung showed no major disparities among dying, surviving and control mice. In CLP-Only mice, although the deregulation of parameters indicative of organ injury/dysfunction was greater in dying versus surviving mice, it never exceeded the changes in surviving CLP-ODam animals, and it was not followed by histopathological damage and/or mitochondrial dysfunction. This shows that interpretation of the contribution of the organ injury/dysfunction to early deaths in the CLP model is not straightforward and depends on the pathophysiological origin of the profiled disturbances.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 71 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Master 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 18 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 20 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 March 2023.
All research outputs
#7,036,222
of 23,495,502 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#164
of 464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,341
of 266,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,495,502 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 266,214 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them