↓ Skip to main content

Widespread aggregation of mutant VAPB associated with ALS does not cause motor neuron degeneration or modulate mutant SOD1 aggregation and toxicity in mice

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Neurodegeneration, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Widespread aggregation of mutant VAPB associated with ALS does not cause motor neuron degeneration or modulate mutant SOD1 aggregation and toxicity in mice
Published in
Molecular Neurodegeneration, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1750-1326-8-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linghua Qiu, Tao Qiao, Melissa Beers, Weijia Tan, Hongyan Wang, Bin Yang, Zuoshang Xu

Abstract

A proline-to-serine substitution at position-56 (P56S) of vesicle-associated membrane protein-associated protein B (VAPB) causes a form of dominantly inherited motor neuron disease (MND), including typical and atypical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and a mild late-onset spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). VAPB is an integral endoplasmic reticulum (ER) protein and has been implicated in various cellular processes, including ER stress, the unfolded protein response (UPR) and Ca2+ homeostasis. However, it is unclear how the P56S mutation leads to neurodegeneration and muscle atrophy in patients. The formation of abnormal VAPB-positive inclusions by mutant VAPB suggests a possible toxic gain of function as an underlying mechanism. Furthermore, the amount of VAPB protein is reported to be reduced in sporadic ALS patients and mutant SOD1G93A mice, leading to the hypothesis that wild type VAPB plays a role in the pathogenesis of ALS without VAPB mutations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 26%
Student > Bachelor 16 19%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 16 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 35%
Neuroscience 11 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 18 21%
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 28 March 2013.
All research outputs
#17,675,320
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Neurodegeneration
#759
of 844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,159
of 280,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Neurodegeneration
#20
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 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 844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 280,814 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.