↓ Skip to main content

Striated muscle function, regeneration, and repair

Overview of attention for article published in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
3 patents
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
279 Mendeley
Title
Striated muscle function, regeneration, and repair
Published in
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00018-016-2285-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. Y. Shadrin, A. Khodabukus, N. Bursac

Abstract

As the only striated muscle tissues in the body, skeletal and cardiac muscle share numerous structural and functional characteristics, while exhibiting vastly different size and regenerative potential. Healthy skeletal muscle harbors a robust regenerative response that becomes inadequate after large muscle loss or in degenerative pathologies and aging. In contrast, the mammalian heart loses its regenerative capacity shortly after birth, leaving it susceptible to permanent damage by acute injury or chronic disease. In this review, we compare and contrast the physiology and regenerative potential of native skeletal and cardiac muscles, mechanisms underlying striated muscle dysfunction, and bioengineering strategies to treat muscle disorders. We focus on different sources for cellular therapy, biomaterials to augment the endogenous regenerative response, and progress in engineering and application of mature striated muscle tissues in vitro and in vivo. Finally, we discuss the challenges and perspectives in translating muscle bioengineering strategies to clinical practice.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 278 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 19%
Student > Master 48 17%
Student > Bachelor 34 12%
Researcher 24 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 5%
Other 31 11%
Unknown 77 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 61 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 10%
Engineering 29 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 4%
Other 39 14%
Unknown 87 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 29 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,520,894
of 24,129,125 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#927
of 5,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,276
of 346,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#11
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,129,125 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 346,366 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.