↓ Skip to main content

Therapeutic targeting of Krüppel-like factor 4 abrogates microglial activation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroinflammation, March 2012
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 (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Therapeutic targeting of Krüppel-like factor 4 abrogates microglial activation
Published in
Journal of Neuroinflammation, March 2012
DOI 10.1186/1742-2094-9-57
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deepak Kumar Kaushik, Rupanjan Mukhopadhyay, Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat, Malvika Gupta, Anirban Basu

Abstract

Neuroinflammation occurs as a result of microglial activation in response to invading micro-organisms or other inflammatory stimuli within the central nervous system. According to our earlier findings, Krüppel-like factor 4 (Klf4), a zinc finger transcription factor, is involved in microglial activation and subsequent release of proinflammatory cytokines, tumor necrosis factor alpha, macrophage chemoattractant protein-1 and interleukin-6 as well as proinflammatory enzymes, inducible nitric oxide synthase and cyclooxygenase-2 in lipopolysaccharide-treated microglial cells. Our current study focuses on finding the molecular mechanism of the anti-inflammatory activities of honokiol in lipopolysaccharide-treated microglia with emphasis on the regulation of Klf4.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 13 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,468,051
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#985
of 2,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,709
of 159,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#6
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 159,669 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.