↓ Skip to main content

Neural stem cells for disease modeling and evaluation of therapeutics for infantile (CLN1/PPT1) and late infantile (CLN2/TPP1) neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Neural stem cells for disease modeling and evaluation of therapeutics for infantile (CLN1/PPT1) and late infantile (CLN2/TPP1) neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13023-018-0798-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ni Sima, Rong Li, Wei Huang, Miao Xu, Jeanette Beers, Jizhong Zou, Steven Titus, Elizabeth A. Ottinger, Juan J. Marugan, Xing Xie, Wei Zheng

Abstract

Infantile and late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses (NCLs) are lysosomal storage diseases affecting the central nervous system (CNS). The infantile NCL (INCL) is caused by mutations in the PPT1 gene and late-infantile NCL (LINCL) is due to mutations in the TPP1 gene. Deficiency in PPT1 or TPP1 enzyme function results in lysosomal accumulation of pathological lipofuscin-like material in the patient cells. There is currently no small-molecular drug treatment for NCLs. We have generated induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) from three patient dermal fibroblast lines and further differentiated them into neural stem cells (NSCs). Using these new disease models, we evaluated the effect of δ-tocopherol (DT) and hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPBCD) with the enzyme replacement therapy as the control. Treatment with the relevant recombinant enzyme or DT significantly ameliorated the lipid accumulation and lysosomal enlargement in the disease cells. A combination therapy of δ-tocopherol and HPBCD further improved the effect compared to that of either drug used as a single therapy. The results demonstrate that these patient iPSC derived NCL NSCs are valid cell- based disease models with characteristic disease phenotypes that can be used for study of disease pathophysiology and drug development.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 21%
Neuroscience 8 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Chemistry 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 13 27%
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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,504,780
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,819
of 2,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,868
of 329,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#26
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 329,244 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 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.