| Title |
Exercise-Derived Microvesicles: A Review of the Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-018-0943-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eurico N. Wilhelm, Laurent Mourot, Mark Rakobowchuk |
| Abstract |
Initially suggested as simple cell debris, cell-derived microvesicles (MVs) have now gained acceptance as recognized players in cellular communication and physiology. Shed by most, and perhaps all, human cells, these tiny lipid-membrane vesicles carry bioactive agents, such as proteins, lipids and microRNA from their cell source, and are produced under orchestrated events in response to a myriad of stimuli. Physical exercise introduces systemic physiological challenges capable of acutely disrupting cell homeostasis and stimulating the release of MVs into the circulation. The novel and promising field of exercise-derived MVs is expanding quickly, and the following work provides a review of the influence of exercise on circulating MVs, considering both acute and chronic aspects of exercise and training. Potential effects of the MV response to exercise are highlighted and future directions suggested as exercise and sports sciences extend the realm of extracellular vesicles. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 4 | 31% |
| Nigeria | 2 | 15% |
| United States | 2 | 15% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Scientists | 3 | 23% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 26 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 33 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 11 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,736,401
of 23,085,832 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,683
of 2,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,677
of 329,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#28
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,085,832 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,720 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 51.3. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 329,875 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 77% of its contemporaries.
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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.