Cited by 62

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Age-Dependent Effect of Apolipoprotein E4 on Functional Outcome after Controlled Cortical Impact in Mice

Mannix, Rebekah C, Zhang, Jimmy, Park, Juyeon, Zhang, Xuan, Bilal, Kiran, Walker, Kendall, Tanzi, Rudolph E, Tesco, Giuseppina, Whalen, Michael J·2011·Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism

Abstract

The apolipoprotein E4 ( APOE4) gene leads to increased brain amyloid beta (Aβ) and poor outcome in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI); however, its role in childhood TBI is controversial. We hypothesized that the transgenic expression of human APOE4 worsens the outcome after controlled cortical impact (CCI) in adult but not immature mice. Adult and immature APOE4 mice had worse motor outcome after CCI ( P<0.001 versus wild type (WT)), but the Morris water maze performance was worse only in adult APOE4 mice ( P=0.028 at 2 weeks, P=0.019 at 6 months versus WT), because immature APOE4 mice had performance similar to WT for up to 1 year after injury. Brain lesion size was similar in adult APOE4 mice but was decreased ( P=0.029 versus WT) in injured immature APOE4 mice. Microgliosis was similar in all groups. Soluble brain Aβ 40 was increased at 48 hours after CCI in adult and immature APOE4 mice and in adult WT ( P<0.05), and was dynamically regulated during the chronic period by APOE4 in adults but not immature mice. The data suggest age-dependent effects of APOE4 on cognitive outcome after TBI, and that therapies targeting APOE4 may be more effective in adults versus children with TBI.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/jcbfm.2010.99

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. 10.1542/peds.2004-1728 · DOI
  2. 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600258 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2005.tb01042.x · DOI
  4. 10.1016/S0197-4580(98)00091-8 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/S0306-4522(00)00069-5 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/S0306-4522(03)00436-6 · DOI
  7. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-23-10083.2002 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1080/02699050701739549 · DOI
  9. 10.1073/pnas.050004797 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.530402 · DOI
  11. 10.1001/jama.1997.03550020068040 · DOI
  12. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000080484.72004.C4 · DOI
  13. 10.1038/nm.1940 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)65184-X · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5572-08.2009 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1212/WNL.45.3.555 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1002/1531-8249(199912)46:6<860::AID-ANA8>3.0.CO;2-M · DOI
  18. 10.1089/neu.2008.0767 · DOI
  19. 10.1074/jbc.M313003200 · DOI
  20. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19990830)411:3<390::AID-CNE3>3.0.CO;2-# · DOI
  21. 10.1111/j.1365-2990.1996.tb01128.x · DOI
  22. 10.1073/pnas.201279298 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/S0306-4522(00)00438-3 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1542/peds.2005-2588 · DOI
  25. 10.1007/s11064-009-9960-5 · DOI
  26. 10.1038/nm0995-852 · DOI
  27. 10.1093/brain/awh595 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)04318-3 · DOI
  29. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3478-07.2007 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2007.11.014 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1155/JBB/2006/58406 · DOI
  32. 10.1203/01.PDR.0000090927.53818.DE · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mannix, R. C., Zhang, J., Park, J., Zhang, X., Bilal, K., Walker, K., Tanzi, R. E., Tesco, G., & Whalen, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, Children's Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  • Neuroscience Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA
  • Department of Neuroscience, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  • Department of Neurology, MIND Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA
Venue
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism
Published
2010-06-30
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
351-361
ISSN
  • 0271-678X
  • 1559-7016
Cited by
62
References
9
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review