↓ Skip to main content

Providing male rats deficient in iron and n-3 fatty acids with iron and alpha-linolenic acid alone affects brain serotonin and cognition differently from combined provision

Overview of attention for article published in Lipids in Health and Disease, June 2014
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
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Providing male rats deficient in iron and n-3 fatty acids with iron and alpha-linolenic acid alone affects brain serotonin and cognition differently from combined provision
Published in
Lipids in Health and Disease, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1476-511x-13-97
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeannine Baumgartner, Cornelius M Smuts, Michael B Zimmermann

Abstract

We recently showed that a combined deficiency of iron (ID) and n-3 fatty acids (n-3 FAD) in rats disrupts brain monoamine metabolism and produces greater memory deficits than ID or n-3 FAD alone. Providing these double-deficient rats with either iron (Fe) or preformed docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)/eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) alone affected brain monoamine pathways differently from combined repletion and even exacerbated cognitive deficits associated with double-deficiency. Iron is a co-factor of the enzymes responsible for the conversion of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) to EPA and DHA, thus, the provision of ALA with Fe might be more effective in restoring brain EPA and DHA and improving cognition in double-deficient rats than ALA alone.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 20%
Psychology 5 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 6 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 October 2014.
All research outputs
#14,787,304
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Lipids in Health and Disease
#746
of 1,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,462
of 228,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lipids in Health and Disease
#13
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,442 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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 228,666 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.