↓ Skip to main content

Cadmium-induced apoptosis of Siberian tiger fibroblasts via disrupted intracellular homeostasis

Overview of attention for article published in Biological Research, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Cadmium-induced apoptosis of Siberian tiger fibroblasts via disrupted intracellular homeostasis
Published in
Biological Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40659-016-0103-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hui Wang, Zheng Liu, Wenxiu Zhang, Ziao Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Xueting Liu, Chunwen Yang, Weijun Guan

Abstract

Heavy metals can cause great harm to Siberian tigers in the natural environment. Cadmium (Cd(2+)) is an environmental contaminant that affects multiple cellular processes, including cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival. It has been shown to induce apoptosis in a variety of cell types and tissues. We investigated the apoptotic effects of Cd(2+) on Siberian tiger fibroblasts in vitro. Our research revealed the typical signs of apoptosis after Cd(2+) exposure. Apoptosis was dose- (0-4.8 μM) and duration-dependent (12-48 h), and proliferation was strongly inhibited. Cd(2+) increased the activity of caspase-3, -8, and -9 and disrupted calcium homeostasis by causing oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction. It also increased K(+) efflux and altered the mRNA levels of Bax, Bcl-2, caspase-3, caspase-8, Fas, and p53. Our results suggest that Cd(2+) triggers the apoptosis of Siberian tiger fibroblasts by disturbing intracellular homeostasis. These results will aid in our understanding of the effects of Cd(2+) on Siberian tigers and in developing interventions to treat and prevent cadmium poisoning.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Researcher 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Unknown 6 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 17%
Environmental Science 1 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Unknown 7 58%

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 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,266,848
of 11,676,441 outputs
Outputs from Biological Research
#144
of 271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,621
of 262,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Research
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,676,441 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 271 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 262,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.