| Title |
Effects of icing or heat stress on the induction of fibrosis and/or regeneration of injured rat soleus muscle
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Physiological Sciences, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12576-015-0433-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tsubasa Shibaguchi, Takao Sugiura, Takanori Fujitsu, Takumi Nomura, Toshinori Yoshihara, Hisashi Naito, Toshitada Yoshioka, Akihiko Ogura, Yoshinobu Ohira |
| Abstract |
The effects of icing or heat stress on the regeneration of injured soleus muscle were investigated in male Wistar rats. Bupivacaine was injected into soleus muscles bilaterally to induce muscle injury. Icing (0 °C, 20 min) was carried out immediately after the injury. Heat stress (42 °C, 30 min) was applied every other day during 2-14 days after the bupivacaine injection. Injury-related increase in collagen deposition was promoted by icing. However, the level of collagen deposition in heat-stressed animals was maintained at control levels throughout the experimental period and was significantly lower than that in icing-treated animals at 15 and 28 days after bupivacaine injection. Furthermore, the recovery of muscle mass, protein content, and muscle fiber size of injured soleus toward control levels was partially facilitated by heat stress. These results suggest that, compared with icing, heat stress may be a beneficial treatment for successful muscle regeneration at least by reducing fibrosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 7 | 18% |
| Turkey | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 40 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 17 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#1,219,452
of 25,597,324 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Physiological Sciences
#14
of 491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,052
of 403,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Physiological Sciences
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,597,324 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 403,223 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.