↓ Skip to main content

Epigenetic changes during sepsis: on your marks!

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Epigenetic changes during sepsis: on your marks!
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1068-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aurélien Bataille, Pierre Galichon, Marie-Julia Ziliotis, Iman Sadia, Alexandre Hertig

Abstract

Epigenetics is the study of how cells, organs, and even individuals utilize their genes over specific periods of time, and under specific environmental constraints. Very importantly, epigenetics is now expanding into the field of medicine and hence should provide new information for the development of drugs. Bomsztyk and colleagues have detected major epigenetic changes occurring in several organs as early as 6 h after the onset of a mouse model of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome induced by Staphylococcus aureus lung injury. Decrease in mRNA of key genes involved in endothelial function was found to be associated with (and potentially explained by) a decrease in permissive histone marks, while repressive marks were unchanged. We discuss here the limitations of a whole-organ as opposed to a cell-specific approach, the nature of the controls that were chosen, and the pitfalls of histone modifications as a cause of the eventual phenotype. While the use of 'epidrugs' is definitely welcome in the clinic, how and when they will be used in sepsis-related multiple organ dysfunction will require further experimental studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 43 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 25%
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 5 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 October 2015.
All research outputs
#3,165,653
of 14,210,914 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,076
of 4,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,609
of 253,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#41
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,210,914 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 253,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.