↓ Skip to main content

LRRK2 phosphorylation level correlates with abnormal motor behaviour in an experimental model of levodopa-induced dyskinesias

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Brain, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
LRRK2 phosphorylation level correlates with abnormal motor behaviour in an experimental model of levodopa-induced dyskinesias
Published in
Molecular Brain, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13041-016-0234-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Stanic, Manuela Mellone, Maria Daniela Cirnaru, Maria Perez-Carrion, Elisa Zianni, Monica Di Luca, Fabrizio Gardoni, Giovanni Piccoli

Abstract

Levodopa (L-DOPA)-induced dyskinesias (LIDs) represent the major side effect in Parkinson's disease (PD) therapy. Leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) mutations account for up to 13 % of familial cases of PD. LRRK2 N-terminal domain encompasses several serine residues that undergo phosphorylation influencing LRRK2 function. This work aims at investigating whether LRRK2 phosphorylation/function may be involved in the molecular pathways downstream D1 dopamine receptor leading to LIDs. Here we show that LRRK2 phosphorylation level at serine 935 correlates with LIDs induction and that inhibition of LRRK2 induces a significant increase in the dyskinetic score in L-DOPA treated parkinsonian animals. Our findings support a close link between LRKK2 functional state and L-DOPA-induced abnormal motor behaviour and highlight that LRRK2 phosphorylation level may be implicated in LIDs, calling for novel therapeutic strategies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 11 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 21%
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 30 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,372,369
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Brain
#672
of 1,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,838
of 309,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Brain
#19
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 309,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.