↓ Skip to main content

Practical considerations for choosing a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Neurodegeneration, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
312 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
673 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
Practical considerations for choosing a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease
Published in
Molecular Neurodegeneration, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13024-017-0231-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna L. Jankowsky, Hui Zheng

Abstract

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is behaviorally identified by progressive memory impairment and pathologically characterized by the triad of β-amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and neurodegeneration. Genetic mutations and risk factors have been identified that are either causal or modify the disease progression. These genetic and pathological features serve as basis for the creation and validation of mouse models of AD. Efforts made in the past quarter-century have produced over 100 genetically engineered mouse lines that recapitulate some aspects of AD clinicopathology. These models have been valuable resources for understanding genetic interactions that contribute to disease and cellular reactions that are engaged in response. Here we focus on mouse models that have been widely used stalwarts of the field or that are recently developed bellwethers of the future. Rather than providing a summary of each model, we endeavor to compare and contrast the genetic approaches employed and to discuss their respective advantages and limitations. We offer a critical account of the variables which may contribute to inconsistent findings and the factors that should be considered when choosing a model and interpreting the results. We hope to present an insightful review of current AD mouse models and to provide a practical guide for selecting models best matched to the experimental question at hand.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 673 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 673 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 145 22%
Researcher 87 13%
Student > Bachelor 78 12%
Student > Master 70 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 24 4%
Other 85 13%
Unknown 184 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 202 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 87 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 66 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 22 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 3%
Other 70 10%
Unknown 205 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 April 2022.
All research outputs
#6,109,071
of 23,543,207 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Neurodegeneration
#574
of 872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,822
of 443,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Neurodegeneration
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,543,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 872 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. 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 443,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.