↓ Skip to main content

Effects of photobleaching on selected advanced glycation end products in the human lens

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Effects of photobleaching on selected advanced glycation end products in the human lens
Published in
BMC Research Notes, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-0977-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Holm, Cibin T Raghavan, Rooban Nahomi, Ram H Nagaraj, Line Kessel

Abstract

BackgroundCataract is the leading cause of blindness, especially in the developing world. To ease access to treatment, we have proposed that cataract could be treated non-invasively by photobleaching of the chemically modified proteins responsible for cataract formation. The present study was aimed at examining the optical and biochemical effects of the proposed treatment.MethodsHuman donor lenses were photobleaced using a 445 nm cw laser. Lens optical quality was assessed before and after photobleaching by light transmission and scattering. The concentration of the advanced glycation end products (AGEs) pentosidine, argpyrimidine, carboxymethyllysine, hydroimidazolone was measured.ResultsTransmission increased and AGE-related fluorescence decreased significantly after photobleaching but no changes were observed in the concentration of the measured AGEs.ConclusionsWe found a significant effect of the photobleaching treatment on lens optical parameters but we could not associate the optical findings to a change in the concentration of the AGEs we measured. This finding suggests that other AGEs were responsible for the observed photobleaching of the human lens after laser treatment. The biochemical nature of the photochemical reactions associated with photobleaching remains to be elucidated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 31%
Researcher 3 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 15%
Student > Master 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 54%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 15%
Chemistry 2 15%
Physics and Astronomy 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Other 0 0%

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 10 February 2015.
All research outputs
#10,018,164
of 12,519,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,933
of 2,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,245
of 273,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#23
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,519,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,804 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 273,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.