↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Extracellular Calcium-Sensing Receptor Ligands on the Contractility of Pregnant Human Myometrium In Vitro

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Sciences, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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.
Title
The Effects of Extracellular Calcium-Sensing Receptor Ligands on the Contractility of Pregnant Human Myometrium In Vitro
Published in
Reproductive Sciences, January 2013
DOI 10.1177/1933719112468949
Pubmed ID
Authors

Denis J. Crankshaw, Marc J. Pistilli, Yvonne M. O’Brien, Eva M. Sweeney, Peter Dockery, Alison C. Holloway, John J. Morrison

Abstract

Ligands for extracellular calcium-sensing (CaS) receptors inhibit oxytocin-induced contractions of the rat's uterus. In this study, we investigated whether the CaS receptor ligands calindol, cinacalcet, and calhex 231 have similar effects on pregnant human myometrium. We compared their effects to those of the calcium-channel blocker nifedipine. In conventional concentration-effect experiments, both the mean contractile force (MCF) and the maximum amplitude of contractions induced by 1 nmol/L oxytocin were inhibited by nifedipine. Calindol and cinacalcet were ineffective as inhibitors, while calhex-231 produced partial inhibition. When single 10 μmol/L doses were applied calhex-231 produced a slowly developing inhibition, reducing the MCF to 38%, and amplitude to 34%, of vehicle controls after 1 hour. In similar experiments, calindol was ineffective while cinacalcet weakly inhibited only the amplitude. Immunohistochemistry revealed sparse expression of CaS receptors in pregnant human myometrium.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 30%
Other 2 20%
Student > Master 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 10%
Unknown 2 20%

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 24 July 2013.
All research outputs
#2,304,310
of 4,507,280 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Sciences
#86
of 313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,069
of 90,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Sciences
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,280 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 313 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 90,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.