↓ Skip to main content

Green tea extract catechin improves internal cardiac muscle relaxation in RCM mice

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Science, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Green tea extract catechin improves internal cardiac muscle relaxation in RCM mice
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Science, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12929-016-0264-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoqin Wang, Zhengyu Zhang, Gang Wu, Changlong Nan, Wen Shen, Yimin Hua, Xupei Huang

Abstract

Diastolic dysfunction refers to an impaired relaxation and an abnormality in a heart's filling during diastole while left ventricular systolic function is preserved. Diastolic dysfunction is commonly observed in patients with primary hypertension, diabetes and cardiomyopathies such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or restrictive cardiomyopathy. We have generated a restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) mouse model with troponin mutations in the heart to mimic the human RCM patients carrying the same mutations. In the present study, we have investigated the ventricular muscle internal dynamics and pressure developed during systole and diastole by inserting a micro-catheter into the left ventricle of the RCM mice with or without treatment of desensitizer green tea extracts catechins. Our results demonstrate that green tea catechin is able to correct diastolic dysfunction in RCM mainly by improving ventricular compliance and reducing the internal muscle rigidity caused by myofibril hypersensitivity to Ca(2+). Green tea extract catechin is effective in correcting diastolic dysfunction and improving ventricular muscle intrinsic compliance in RCM caused by troponin mutations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Professor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 17 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 17 47%
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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Science
#969
of 1,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323,169
of 367,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Science
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 367,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.