↓ Skip to main content

Indole compounds may be promising medicines for ulcerative colitis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gastroenterology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Indole compounds may be promising medicines for ulcerative colitis
Published in
Journal of Gastroenterology, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00535-016-1220-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shinya Sugimoto, Makoto Naganuma, Takanori Kanai

Abstract

Indole compounds are extracted from indigo plants and have been used as blue or purple dyes for hundreds of years. In traditional Chinese medicine, herbal agents in combination with Qing-Dai (also known as indigo naturalis) have been used to treat patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and to remedy inflammatory conditions. Recent studies have noted that indole compounds can be biosynthesized from tryptophan metabolites produced by various enzymes derived from intestinal microbiota. In addition to their action on indole compounds, the intestinal microbiota produce various tryptophan metabolites that mediate critical functions through distinct pathways and enzymes. Furthermore, some indole compounds, such as indigo and indirubin, act as ligands for the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. This signaling pathway stimulates mucosal type 3 innate lymphoid cells to produce interleukin-22, which induces antimicrobial peptide and tight junction molecule production, suggesting a role for indole compounds during the mucosal healing process. Thus, indole compounds may represent a novel treatment strategy for UC patients. In this review, we describe the origin and function of this indole compound-containing Chinese herb, as well as the drug development of indole compounds.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Master 8 16%
Unspecified 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Other 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 25%
Unspecified 12 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Chemistry 4 8%
Other 10 20%

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 26 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,637,003
of 12,221,136 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gastroenterology
#455
of 711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,450
of 275,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gastroenterology
#7
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,221,136 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 711 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 275,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.