↓ Skip to main content

Difference in intraosseous blood vessel volume and number in osteoporotic model mice induced by spinal cord injury and sciatic nerve resection

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Difference in intraosseous blood vessel volume and number in osteoporotic model mice induced by spinal cord injury and sciatic nerve resection
Published in
Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism, November 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00774-011-0328-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wen-Ge Ding, Wei-hong Yan, Zhao-Xiang Wei, Jin-Bo Liu

Abstract

In the present study, we examined intraosseous blood vessel parameters of the tibial metaphysis in mice using microcomputed tomography (µCT) to investigate the relationship between post-nerve-injury osteoporosis and local intraosseous blood vessel volume and number. Mice were randomly divided into groups receiving spinal cord injury (SCI), sciatic nerve resection group (NX), or intact controls (30 mice/group). Four weeks after surgery, mice were perfused with silicone and the distribution of intraosseous blood vessels analyzed by μCT. The bone density, μCT microstructure, biomechanical properties, and the immunohistochemical and biochemical indicators of angiogenesis were also measured. The SCI group showed significantly reduced tibial metaphysis bone density, μCT bone microstructure, tibial biomechanical properties, indicators of angiogenesis, and intraosseous blood vessel parameters compared to the NX group. Furthermore, the spinal cord-injured mice exhibited significantly decreased intraosseous blood vessel volume and number during the development of osteoporosis. In conclusion, these data suggest that decreased intraosseous blood vessel volume and number may play an important role in the development of post-nerve-injury osteoporosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 5%
Colombia 1 5%
Unknown 19 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Student > Master 4 19%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Engineering 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2013.
All research outputs
#21,180,380
of 23,842,189 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism
#563
of 787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,357
of 145,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,842,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 787 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 145,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.