↓ Skip to main content

Evidence that an APOE ε4 'double whammy' increases risk for Alzheimer's disease

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2012
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 (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Evidence that an APOE ε4 'double whammy' increases risk for Alzheimer's disease
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2012
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-10-36
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ina Caesar, Sam Gandy

Abstract

Temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is associated with some of the same neuropathological features as those reported for early stages of typical Alzheimer's disease (AD). The APOE ε4 allele is associated with a gene-dose-dependent increase in AD risk and in the severity of amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology. In a study published in the current BMC Medicine, Sue Griffin and colleagues studied markers of brain resilience in the amputated temporal lobes of TLE patients. They discovered compelling evidence that the APOE ε3 isoform in TLE patients is apparently more neuroprotective from Aβ toxicity than is the APOE ε4 isoform, as shown by the reduced levels of neuronal damage, glial activation, and expression of IL-1α in the APOE ε3/ε3 brains. This result points to a new property of APOE isoforms: not only are APOE ε4 alleles associated with increased brain amyloid plaque burden, but these alleles are also apparently inferior to APOE ε3 alleles in conveying resistance to Aβ neurotoxicity. This 'double whammy' result opens up a new direction for studies aimed at elucidating the relevant neurobiological activities of APOE isoforms in the pathogenesis of AD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 31%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Professor 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 15%
Neuroscience 3 12%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 April 2012.
All research outputs
#3,380,634
of 21,332,163 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,808
of 3,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,623
of 141,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,332,163 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,126 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 141,321 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them