You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Myoblast fusion confusion: the resolution begins
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Skeletal Muscle, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13395-017-0149-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Srihari C. Sampath, Srinath C. Sampath, Douglas P. Millay |
| Abstract |
The fusion of muscle precursor cells is a required event for proper skeletal muscle development and regeneration. Numerous proteins have been implicated to function in myoblast fusion; however, the majority are expressed in diverse tissues and regulate numerous cellular processes. How myoblast fusion is triggered and coordinated in a muscle-specific manner has remained a mystery for decades. Through the discovery of two muscle-specific fusion proteins, Myomaker and Myomerger-Minion, we are now primed to make significant advances in our knowledge of myoblast fusion. This article reviews the latest findings regarding the biology of Myomaker and Minion-Myomerger, places these findings in the context of known pathways in mammalian myoblast fusion, and highlights areas that require further investigation. As our understanding of myoblast fusion matures so does our potential ability to manipulate cell fusion for therapeutic purposes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 Kingdom | 6 | 25% |
| United States | 5 | 21% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Norway | 1 | 4% |
| Singapore | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 63% |
| Scientists | 7 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 201 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 46 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 15% |
| Researcher | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 26 | 13% |
| Unknown | 45 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 70 | 35% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 5% |
| Engineering | 8 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 11% |
| Unknown | 50 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 2019.
All research outputs
#2,142,490
of 24,522,750 outputs
Outputs from Skeletal Muscle
#44
of 378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,919
of 449,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Skeletal Muscle
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,522,750 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 378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 449,074 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.