↓ Skip to main content

Lessons from the swamp: developing small molecules that confer salamander muscle cellularization in mammals

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Medicine, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Lessons from the swamp: developing small molecules that confer salamander muscle cellularization in mammals
Published in
Clinical and Translational Medicine, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40169-017-0143-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

JungIn Um, Da-Woon Jung, Darren Reece Williams

Abstract

The ability of salamanders, such as newts, to regenerate damaged tissues has been studied for centuries. A prominent example of this regenerative power is the ability to re-grow entire amputated limbs. One important step in this regeneration process is skeletal muscle cellularization, in which the muscle fibers break down into dedifferentiated, mononuclear cells that proliferate and form new muscle in the replacement limb. In contrast, mammalian skeletal muscle does not undergo cellularization after injury. A significant proportion of research about tissue regeneration in salamanders aims to characterize regulatory genes that may have mammalian homologs. A less mainstream approach is to develop small molecule compounds that induce regeneration-related mechanisms in mammals. In this commentary, we discuss progress in discovering small molecules that induce cellularization in mammalian muscle. New research findings using these compounds has also shed light on cellular processes that regulate cellularization, such as apoptotic signaling. Although formidable technical hurdles remain, this progress increases our understanding of tissue regeneration and provide opportunities for developing small molecules that may enhance tissue repair in humans.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Student > Master 1 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 18%
Unknown 2 18%
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 24 March 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#752
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,906
of 322,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 322,842 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.