↓ Skip to main content

Pathophysiology and therapeutic potential of cardiac fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Inflammation and Regeneration, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Pathophysiology and therapeutic potential of cardiac fibrosis
Published in
Inflammation and Regeneration, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41232-017-0046-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hironori Hara, Norifumi Takeda, Issei Komuro

Abstract

Inflammatory and fibrotic responses to myocardial damage are essential for cardiac repair; however, these responses often result in extensive fibrotic remodeling with impaired systolic function. Recent reports have suggested that such acute phase responses provide a favorable environment for endogenous cardiac regeneration, which is mainly driven by the division of pre-existing cardiomyocytes (CMs). Existing CMs in mammals can re-acquire proliferative activity after substantial cardiac damage, and elements other than CMs in the physiological and/or pathological environment, such as hypoxia, angiogenesis, and the polarity of infiltrating macrophages, have been reported to regulate replication. Cardiac fibroblasts comprise the largest cell population in terms of cell number in the myocardium, and they play crucial roles in the proliferation and protection of CMs. The in vivo direct reprogramming of functional CMs has been investigated in cardiac regeneration. Currently, growth factors, transcription factors, microRNAs, and small molecules promoting the regeneration and protection of these CMs have also been actively researched. Here, we summarize and discuss current studies on the relationship between cardiac inflammation and fibrosis, and cardiac regeneration and protection, which would be useful for the development of therapeutic strategies to treat and prevent advanced heart failure.

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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 29 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 31 34%
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 22 December 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Inflammation and Regeneration
#163
of 258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,256
of 307,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Inflammation and Regeneration
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 307,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.