↓ Skip to main content

Endochondral bone growth, bone calcium accretion, and bone mineral density: how are they related?

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Physiological Sciences, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Endochondral bone growth, bone calcium accretion, and bone mineral density: how are they related?
Published in
The Journal of Physiological Sciences, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s12576-012-0212-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kannikar Wongdee, Nateetip Krishnamra, Narattaphol Charoenphandhu

Abstract

Endochondral bone growth in young growing mammals or adult mammals with persistent growth plates progresses from proliferation, maturation and hypertrophy of growth plate chondrocytes to mineralization of cartilaginous matrix to form an osseous tissue. This complex process is tightly regulated by a number of factors with different impacts, such as genetics, endocrine/paracrine factors [e.g., PTHrP, 1,25(OH)(2)D(3), IGF-1, FGFs, and prolactin], and nutritional status (e.g., dietary calcium and vitamin D). Despite a strong link between growth plate function and elongation of the long bone, little is known whether endochondral bone growth indeed determines bone calcium accretion, bone mineral density (BMD), and/or peak bone mass. Since the process ends with cartilaginous matrix calcification, an increase in endochondral bone growth typically leads to more calcium accretion in the primary spongiosa and thus higher BMD. However, in lactating rats with enhanced trabecular bone resorption, bone elongation is inversely correlated with BMD. Although BMD can be increased by factors that enhance endochondral bone growth, the endochondral bone growth itself is unlikely to be an important determinant of peak bone mass since it is strongly determined by genetics. Therefore, endochondral bone growth and bone elongation are associated with calcium accretion only in a particular subregion of the long bone, but do not necessarily predict BMD and peak bone mass.

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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Engineering 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 14 30%
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 27 May 2012.
All research outputs
#21,476,880
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Physiological Sciences
#267
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,729
of 167,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Physiological Sciences
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 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 321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. 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 167,356 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.