↓ 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 (#6 of 305)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
246 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Norway 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 236 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 21%
Student > Bachelor 39 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 14%
Researcher 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 45 18%
Unknown 43 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 65 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 2%
Other 21 9%
Unknown 51 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,295,367
of 24,717,692 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility
#6
of 305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,762
of 318,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 305 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. 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 318,577 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 91% 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