↓ Skip to main content

Systemic lipopolysaccharide-mediated alteration of cortical neuromodulation involves increases in monoamine oxidase-A and acetylcholinesterase activity

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroinflammation, February 2015
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 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
Systemic lipopolysaccharide-mediated alteration of cortical neuromodulation involves increases in monoamine oxidase-A and acetylcholinesterase activity
Published in
Journal of Neuroinflammation, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12974-015-0259-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhi Ming, Caitlin A Wotton, Robert T Appleton, John C Ching, Matthew E Loewen, Grzegorz Sawicki, Lane K Bekar

Abstract

Lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-mediated sickness behaviour is known to be a result of increased inflammatory cytokines in the brain. Inflammatory cytokines have been shown to mediate increases in brain excitation by loss of GABAA-mediated inhibition through receptor internalization or inactivation. Inflammatory pathways, reactive oxygen species and stress are also known to increase monoamine oxidase-A (MAO-A) and acetylcholinesterase (ACh-E) activity. Given that neuromodulator actions on neural circuits largely depend on inhibitory pathways and are sensitive to alteration in corresponding catalytic enzyme activities, we assessed the impact of systemic LPS on neuromodulator-mediated shaping of a simple cortical network.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 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 > Ph. D. Student 10 33%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 13%
Chemistry 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 17%
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 19 April 2015.
All research outputs
#13,429,013
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#1,443
of 2,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,876
of 255,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#24
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,626 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 255,481 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.