↓ Skip to main content

In vitro evaluation of the synergistic antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of the combined extracts from Malaysian Ganoderma lucidum and Egyptian Chlorella vulgaris

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
In vitro evaluation of the synergistic antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of the combined extracts from Malaysian Ganoderma lucidum and Egyptian Chlorella vulgaris
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12906-018-2218-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marwa M. Abu-Serie, Noha H. Habashy, Wafaa E. Attia

Abstract

Since oxidative stress and inflammation are two linked factors in the pathogenesis of several human diseases. Thus identification of effective treatment is of great importance. Edible mushroom and microalgae are rich in the effective antioxidant phytochemicals. Hence, their beneficial effects on oxidative stress-associated inflammation are extremely required to be investigated. This study evaluated the functional constituents, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of Malaysian Ganoderma lucidum aqueous extract (GLE) and Egyptian Chlorella vulgaris ethanolic extract (CVE). Also, the synergistic, addictive or antagonistic activities of the combination between the two extracts (GLE-CVE) were studied. Expression of inducible nitric oxide synthase, cyclooxygenase-2, and nuclear factor-kappa B, as well as levels of nitric oxide, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, lipid peroxidation, reduced glutathione and antioxidant enzymes were determined using in vitro model of lipopolysaccharide-stimulated white blood cells.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 37 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Chemistry 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 43 43%
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 01 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,950,284
of 23,050,116 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,366
of 3,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,354
of 326,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#41
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,050,116 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,647 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 326,022 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.