↓ Skip to main content

Pathogenesis of the C3 glomerulopathies and reclassification of MPGN

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Nephrology, October 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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
patent
4 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Pathogenesis of the C3 glomerulopathies and reclassification of MPGN
Published in
Nature Reviews Nephrology, October 2012
DOI 10.1038/nrneph.2012.213
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew S. Bomback, Gerald B. Appel

Abstract

Until recently, membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (MPGN) was clinically classified as either primary, idiopathic MPGN or as secondary MPGN when an underlying aetiology was identifiable. Primary MPGN was further classified into three types--type I, type II, and type III--based principally on the ultrastructural appearance and location of electron-dense deposits. Both the clinical and histopathologic schemes presented problems, however, as neither was based on disease pathogenesis. An improved understanding of the role of complement in the pathogenesis of MPGN has led to a proposed reclassification into immunoglobulin-mediated disease (driven by the classical complement pathway) and non-immunoglobulin-mediated disease (driven by the alternative complement pathway). This reclassification has led to improved diagnostic clinical algorithms and the emergence of a new grouping of diseases known as the C3 glomerulopathies, best represented by dense deposit disease and C3 glomerulonephritis. In this Review, we re-examine the previous and current classification schemes of MPGN, focusing on the role of complement. We survey current data about the pathogenesis of the C3 glomerulopathies, including familial studies and patient cohorts from the USA and Europe. In addition, we discuss the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of the C3 glomerulopathies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 155 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 14%
Other 22 14%
Student > Postgraduate 18 11%
Student > Master 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Other 40 25%
Unknown 28 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 64%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 31 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 December 2023.
All research outputs
#3,648,414
of 23,435,471 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Nephrology
#732
of 1,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,180
of 173,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Nephrology
#5
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,435,471 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 1,767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
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 173,830 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 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.