↓ Skip to main content

Dystrophin deficiency exacerbates skeletal muscle pathology in dysferlin-null mice

Overview of attention for article published in Skeletal Muscle, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
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.
Title
Dystrophin deficiency exacerbates skeletal muscle pathology in dysferlin-null mice
Published in
Skeletal Muscle, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/2044-5040-1-35
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renzhi Han, Erik P Rader, Jennifer R Levy, Dimple Bansal, Kevin P Campbell

Abstract

Mutations in the genes coding for either dystrophin or dysferlin cause distinct forms of muscular dystrophy. Dystrophin links the cytoskeleton to the sarcolemma through direct interaction with β-dystroglycan. This link extends to the extracellular matrix by β-dystroglycan's interaction with α-dystroglycan, which binds extracellular matrix proteins, including laminin α2, agrin and perlecan, that possess laminin globular domains. The absence of dystrophin disrupts this link, leading to compromised muscle sarcolemmal integrity. Dysferlin, on the other hand, plays an important role in the Ca2+-dependent membrane repair of damaged sarcolemma in skeletal muscle. Because dysferlin and dystrophin play different roles in maintaining muscle cell integrity, we hypothesized that disrupting sarcolemmal integrity with dystrophin deficiency would exacerbate the pathology in dysferlin-null mice and allow further characterization of the role of dysferlin in skeletal muscle.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 25%
Researcher 7 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 13%
Other 6 11%
Professor 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 December 2011.
All research outputs
#2,660,984
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from Skeletal Muscle
#63
of 360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,169
of 240,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Skeletal Muscle
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 360 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 240,213 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.