| Title |
A shared mechanism of muscle wasting in cancer and Huntington's disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Medicine, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40169-015-0076-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michal Mielcarek, Mark Isalan |
| Abstract |
Skeletal muscle loss and dysfunction in aging and chronic diseases is one of the major causes of mortality in patients, and is relevant for a wide variety of diseases such as neurodegeneration and cancer. Muscle loss is accompanied by changes in gene expression and metabolism that lead to contractile impairment and likely affect whole-body metabolism and function. The changes may be caused by inactivity, inflammation, age-related factors or unbalanced nutrition. Although links with skeletal muscle loss have been found in diseases with disparate aetiologies, for example both in Huntington's disease (HD) and cancer cachexia, the outcome is a similar impairment and mortality. This short commentary aims to summarize recent achievements in the identification of common mechanisms leading to the skeletal muscle wasting syndrome seen in diseases as different as cancer and HD. The latter is the most common hereditary neurodegenerative disorder and muscle wasting is an important component of its pathology. In addition, possible therapeutic strategies for anti-cachectic treatment will be also discussed in the light of their translation into possible therapeutic approaches for HD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 21% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 21% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#526
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,866
of 396,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 396,091 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.