↓ Skip to main content

Functional Differences Between Two Classes of Sodium Channels in Developing Rat Skeletal Muscle

Overview of attention for article published in Science, July 1986
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
20 patents

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Functional Differences Between Two Classes of Sodium Channels in Developing Rat Skeletal Muscle
Published in
Science, July 1986
DOI 10.1126/science.2425432
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Excitability is generated in developing skeletal muscle by the incorporation of sodium-selective ion channels into the surface membrane. Whole-cell and patch voltage-clamp recording from myotubes and their embryologic precursors, myoblasts, indicated that voltage-activated sodium current in myoblasts was more resistant to block by tetrodotoxin (TTX) than that in myotubes. Single-channel recording from both cell types showed two classes of sodium channels. One class had a lower single-channel conductance, activated at more hyperpolarized voltages, and was more resistant to TTX than the other. The proportion of TTX-resistant to TTX-sensitive sodium channels was higher in myoblasts than in myotubes. Thus, the difference in TTX sensitivity between myoblasts and myotubes can be explained by a difference in the proportion of the two classes of sodium channels. In addition, the lower conductance of TTX-resistant channels provides insight into the relationship between the TTX binding site and the external mouth of the sodium channel.

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 20 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 %
Switzerland 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 4 20%
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 30%
Neuroscience 3 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 August 2026.
All research outputs
#5,046,170
of 34,054,827 outputs
Outputs from Science
#43,305
of 93,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,270
of 15,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#37
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,054,827 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 93,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 65.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 15,879 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.