↓ Skip to main content

Lessons learned from metabolomics in cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular and Cellular Pediatrics, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Lessons learned from metabolomics in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Molecular and Cellular Pediatrics, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40348-015-0020-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marianne S. Muhlebach, Wei Sha

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis is a mono-genetic multi-system disease; however, respiratory manifestations cause the main morbidity and mortality where chronic bacterial infections lead to bronchiectasis and ultimately respiratory failure. Metabolomics allows a relatively complete snapshot of metabolic processes in a sample using different mass spectrometry methods. Sample types used for discovery of biomarkers or pathomechanisms in cystic fibrosis (CF) have included blood, respiratory secretions, and exhaled breath to date. Metabolomics has shown distinction of CF vs. non-CF for matrices of blood, exhaled breath, and respiratory epithelial cultures, each showing different pathways. Severity of lung disease has been addressed by studies in bronchoalveolar lavage and exhaled breath condensate showing separation by metabolites that the authors of each study related to inflammation; e.g., ethanol, acetone, purines. Lipidomics has been applied to blood and sputum samples showing associations with lung function and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection status. Finally, studies of bacteria grown in vitro showed differences of bacterial metabolites to be associated with clinical parameters. Metabolomics, in the sense of global metabolomic profiling, is a powerful technique that has allowed discovery of pathways that had not previously been implicated in CF. These may include purines, mitochondrial pathways, and different aspects of glucose metabolism besides the known differences in lipid metabolism in CF. However, targeted studies to validate such potential metabolites and pathways of interest are necessary. Studies evaluating metabolites of bacterial origin are in their early stages. Thus further well-designed studies could be envisioned.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 63 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Other 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Chemistry 7 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 10 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 November 2015.
All research outputs
#17,775,656
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Molecular and Cellular Pediatrics
#61
of 98 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,701
of 283,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular and Cellular Pediatrics
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 98 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 283,131 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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.