↓ Skip to main content

Myoadenylate deaminase deficiency. Functional and metabolic abnormalities associated with disruption of the purine nucleotide cycle.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Investigation, March 1984
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
32 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.
Article details
Title
Myoadenylate deaminase deficiency. Functional and metabolic abnormalities associated with disruption of the purine nucleotide cycle.
Published in
Journal of Clinical Investigation, March 1984
DOI 10.1172/jci111265
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To assess the role of the purine nucleotide cycle in human skeletal muscle function, we evaluated 10 patients with AMP deaminase deficiency (myoadenylate deaminase deficiency; MDD). 4 MDD and 19 non-MDD controls participated in an exercise protocol. The latter group was composed of a patient cohort (n = 8) exhibiting a constellation of symptoms similar to those of the MDD patients, i.e., postexertional aches, cramps, and pains; as well as a cohort of normal, unconditioned volunteers (n = 11). The individuals with MDD fatigued after performing only 28% as much work as their non-MDD counterparts. Muscle biopsies were obtained from the four MDD patients and the eight non-MDD patients at rest and following exercise to the point of fatigue. Creatine phosphate content fell to a comparable extent in the MDD (69%) and non-MDD (52%) patients at the onset of fatigue. Following exercise the 34% decrease in ATP content of muscle from the non-MDD subjects was significantly greater than the 6% decrease in ATP noted in muscle from the MDD patients (P = 0.048). Only one of four MDD patients had a measurable drop in ATP compared with seven of eight non-MDD patients. At end-exercise the muscle content of inosine 5'-monophosphate (IMP), a product of AMP deaminase, was 13-fold greater in the non-MDD patients than that observed in the MDD group (P = 0.008). Adenosine content of muscle from the MDD patients increased 16-fold following exercise, while there was only a twofold increase in adenosine content of muscle from the non-MDD patients (P = 0.028). Those non-MDD patients in whom the decrease in ATP content following exercise was measurable exhibited a stoichiometric increase in IMP, and total purine content of the muscle did not change significantly. The one MDD patient in whom the decrease in ATP was measurable, did not exhibit a stoichiometric increase in IMP. Although the adenosine content increased 13-fold in this patient, only 48% of the ATP catabolized could be accounted for by the combined increases of adenosine, inosine, hypoxanthine, and IMP. Studies performed in vitro with muscle samples from seven MDD and seven non-MDD subjects demonstrated that ATP catabolism was associated with a fivefold greater increase in IMP in non-MDD muscle. There were significant increases in AMP and ADP content of the muscle from MDD patients following ATP catabolism in vitro, while there was no detectable increase in AMP or ADP in non-MDD muscle. Adenosine content of MDD muscle increased following ATP catabolism, but there was no detectable increase in adenosine content of non-MDD muscle following ATP catabolism in vitro. These studies demonstrate that AMP deaminase deficiency leads to reduced entry of adenine nucleotides into the purine nucleotide cycle during exercise. We postulate that the resultant disruption of the purine nucleotide cycle accounts for the muscle dysfunction observed in these patients.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 25%
Professor 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Psychology 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 6 19%
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 14 August 2011.
All research outputs
#8,533,995
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Investigation
#10,155
of 17,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,341
of 8,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Investigation
#10
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 17,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 8,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.