↓ Skip to main content

The Endogenous Hydrogen Sulfide Producing Enzyme Cystathionine-β Synthase Contributes to Visceral Hypersensitivity in a Rat Model of Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Pain, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 670)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
The Endogenous Hydrogen Sulfide Producing Enzyme Cystathionine-β Synthase Contributes to Visceral Hypersensitivity in a Rat Model of Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Published in
Molecular Pain, January 2009
DOI 10.1186/1744-8069-5-44
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guang-Yin Xu, John H Winston, Mohan Shenoy, Shufang Zhou, Jiande DZ Chen, Pankaj J Pasricha

Abstract

The pathogenesis of visceral hypersensitivity, a characteristic pathophysiological feature of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), remains elusive. Recent studies suggest a role for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in pain signaling but this has not been well studied in visceral models of hyperalgesia. We therefore determined the role for the endogenous H2S producing enzyme cystathionine-beta-synthetase (CBS) in a validated rat model of IBS-like chronic visceral hyperalgesia (CVH). CVH was induced by colonic injection of 0.5% acetic acid (AA) in 10-day-old rats and experiments were performed at 8-10 weeks of age. Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons innervating the colon were labeled by injection of DiI (1,1'-dioleyl-3,3,3',3-tetramethylindocarbocyanine methanesulfonate) into the colon wall.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 58 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 11%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 9 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 04 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,204,099
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Pain
#29
of 670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,418
of 183,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Pain
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 183,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.