↓ Skip to main content

Correlational Analysis for Identifying Genes whose Regulation Contributes to Chronic Neuropathic Pain

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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
18 patents
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Correlational Analysis for Identifying Genes whose Regulation Contributes to Chronic Neuropathic Pain
Published in
Molecular Pain, January 2009
DOI 10.1186/1744-8069-5-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna-Karin Persson, Mathias Gebauer, Suzana Jordan, Christiane Metz-Weidmann, Anke M Schulte, Hans-Christoph Schneider, Danping Ding-Pfennigdorff, Jonas Thun, Xiao-Jun Xu, Zsuzsanna Wiesenfeld-Hallin, Ariel Darvasi, Kaj Fried, Marshall Devor

Abstract

Nerve injury-triggered hyperexcitability in primary sensory neurons is considered a major source of chronic neuropathic pain. The hyperexcitability, in turn, is thought to be related to transcriptional switching in afferent cell somata. Analysis using expression microarrays has revealed that many genes are regulated in the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) following axotomy. But which contribute to pain phenotype versus other nerve injury-evoked processes such as nerve regeneration? Using the L5 spinal nerve ligation model of neuropathy we examined differential changes in gene expression in the L5 (and L4) DRGs in five mouse strains with contrasting susceptibility to neuropathic pain. We sought genes for which the degree of regulation correlates with strain-specific pain phenotype.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Israel 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 66 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Student > Master 7 10%
Professor 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 20%
Neuroscience 12 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 11 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 13 December 2012.
All research outputs
#3,415,510
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Pain
#53
of 669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,293
of 183,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Pain
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 669 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 90% 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 183,286 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 90% 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 well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.