↓ Skip to main content

Mitochondrial DNA and Diseases

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 8: Is Mitochondrial Cell Fragility a Cell Weakness?
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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.
Chapter title
Is Mitochondrial Cell Fragility a Cell Weakness?
Chapter number 8
Book title
Mitochondrial DNA and Diseases
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-6674-0_8
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-9-81-106673-3, 978-9-81-106674-0
Authors

William Wang, Jiayuan Hou, Zhenghua Zhu, Hao Fang, Wang, William, Hou, Jiayuan, Zhu, Zhenghua, Fang, Hao

Abstract

Mitochondrial dysfunction has historically been linked to the cessation of cell function and ageing. Downstream effects such as reduced calcium buffering capacity, elevated levels of reactive oxygen species, and alterations in adenosine-5'-triphosphate are linked to a wide variety of pathological diseases. The importance of the mitochondria has increasingly been highlighted due to its potential as a therapeutic target for drug intervention and cell elimination in cancer. In addition, due to its origin, drugs targeting bacteria are required to be thoroughly tested prior to administration to prevent toxicity for the mitochondria. In this chapter, we will discuss a variety of factors that could influence mitochondrial dysfunction and highlight potential solutions to these. A comprehensive understanding regarding the mechanisms underlying mitochondrial dysfunction could aid in developing future therapeutic targets in multiple pathologies such as cancer and liver diseases.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Unknown 3 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 17%
Engineering 1 17%
Unknown 3 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#16,297,434
of 24,780,938 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#2,443
of 5,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,039
of 431,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#214
of 492 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,780,938 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 431,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 492 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.