| Title |
Androgens and skeletal muscle: cellular and molecular action mechanisms underlying the anabolic actions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00018-011-0883-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vanessa Dubois, Michaël Laurent, Steven Boonen, Dirk Vanderschueren, Frank Claessens |
| Abstract |
Androgens increase both the size and strength of skeletal muscle via diverse mechanisms. The aim of this review is to discuss the different cellular targets of androgens in skeletal muscle as well as the respective androgen actions in these cells leading to changes in proliferation, myogenic differentiation, and protein metabolism. Androgens bind and activate a specific nuclear receptor which will directly affect the transcription of target genes. These genes encode muscle-specific transcription factors, enzymes, structural proteins, as well as microRNAs. In addition, anabolic action of androgens is partly established through crosstalk with other signaling molecules such as Akt, myostatin, IGF-I, and Notch. Finally, androgens may also exert non-genomic effects in muscle by increasing Ca(2+) uptake and modulating kinase activities. In conclusion, the anabolic effect of androgens on skeletal muscle is not only explained by activation of the myocyte androgen receptor but is also the combined result of many genomic and non-genomic actions. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 131 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 19% |
| Researcher | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 22 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 10 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 14% |
| Unknown | 22 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#8,220,755
of 24,630,122 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#2,037
of 5,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,591
of 248,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#15
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,630,122 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,624 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 248,189 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 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.