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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Genomic Profiling of Messenger RNAs and MicroRNAs Reveals Potential Mechanisms of TWEAK-Induced Skeletal Muscle Wasting in Mice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0008760 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Siva K. Panguluri, Shephali Bhatnagar, Akhilesh Kumar, John J. McCarthy, Apurva K. Srivastava, Nigel G. Cooper, Robert F. Lundy, Ashok Kumar |
| Abstract |
Skeletal muscle wasting is a devastating complication of several physiological and pathophysiological conditions. Inflammatory cytokines play an important role in the loss of skeletal muscle mass in various chronic diseases. We have recently reported that proinflammatory cytokine TWEAK is a major muscle-wasting cytokine. Emerging evidence suggests that gene expression is regulated not only at transcriptional level but also at post-transcriptional level through the expression of specific non-coding microRNAs (miRs) which can affect the stability and/or translation of target mRNA. However, the role of miRs in skeletal muscle wasting is unknown. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 5% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 80 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 15 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 39% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 22% |
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 29 October 2014.
All research outputs
#3,589,114
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#44,596
of 194,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,999
of 164,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#190
of 609 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 164,036 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 609 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 68% of its contemporaries.