↓ Skip to main content

Commitment and Differentiation of Osteoclast Precursor Cells by the Sequential Expression of C-Fms and Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor κb (Rank) Receptors

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Experimental Medicine, December 1999
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
613 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 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
Commitment and Differentiation of Osteoclast Precursor Cells by the Sequential Expression of C-Fms and Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor κb (Rank) Receptors
Published in
The Journal of Experimental Medicine, December 1999
DOI 10.1084/jem.190.12.1741
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fumio Arai, Takeshi Miyamoto, Osamu Ohneda, Tomohisa Inada, Tetsuo Sudo, Kenneth Brasel, Takashi Miyata, Dirk M. Anderson, Toshio Suda

Abstract

Osteoclasts are terminally differentiated cells derived from hematopoietic stem cells. However, how their precursor cells diverge from macrophagic lineages is not known. We have identified early and late stages of osteoclastogenesis, in which precursor cells sequentially express c-Fms followed by receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB (RANK), and have demonstrated that RANK expression in early-stage of precursor cells (c-Fms(+)RANK(-)) was stimulated by macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF). Although M-CSF and RANKL (ligand) induced commitment of late-stage precursor cells (c-Fms(+)RANK(+)) into osteoclasts, even late-stage precursors have the potential to differentiate into macrophages without RANKL. Pretreatment of precursors with M-CSF and delayed addition of RANKL showed that timing of RANK expression and subsequent binding of RANKL are critical for osteoclastogenesis. Thus, the RANK-RANKL system determines the osteoclast differentiation of bipotential precursors in the default pathway of macrophagic differentiation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Germany 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 203 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 22%
Researcher 35 17%
Student > Master 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 39 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 47 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 7%
Engineering 11 5%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 43 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 October 2010.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Experimental Medicine
#6,581
of 11,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,855
of 109,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Experimental Medicine
#39
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 11,599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 109,806 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.