↓ Skip to main content

The role of satellite cells in muscle hypertrophy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 218)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The role of satellite cells in muscle hypertrophy
Published in
Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10974-014-9376-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bert Blaauw, Carlo Reggiani

Abstract

The role of satellite cells in muscle hypertrophy has long been a debated issue. In the late 1980s it was shown that proteins remain close to the myonucleus responsible for its synthesis, giving rise to the idea of a nuclear domain. This, together with the observation that during various models of muscle hypertrophy there is an activation of the muscle stem cells, i.e. satellite cells, lead to the idea that satellite cell activation is required for muscle hypertrophy. Thus, satellite cells are not only responsible for muscle repair and regeneration, but also for hypertrophic growth. Further support for this line of thinking was obtained after studies showing that irradiation of skeletal muscle, and therefore elimination of all satellite cells, completely prevented overload-induced hypertrophy. Recently however, using different transgenic approaches, it has become clear that muscle hypertrophy can occur without a contribution of satellite cells, even though in most situations of muscle hypertrophy satellite cells are activated. In this review we will discuss the contribution of satellite cells, and other muscle-resident stem cells, to muscle hypertrophy both in mice as well as in humans.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 3 2%
United States 3 2%
Brazil 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 147 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 27%
Student > Bachelor 26 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Unspecified 14 9%
Researcher 12 8%
Other 43 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 48 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 23%
Unspecified 21 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 11%
Other 14 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 06 September 2015.
All research outputs
#1,114,842
of 13,728,145 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility
#3
of 218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,004
of 190,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,728,145 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 190,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them