↓ Skip to main content

Potential signaling pathways of acute endurance exercise-induced cardiac autophagy and mitophagy and its possible role in cardioprotection

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Physiological Sciences, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Potential signaling pathways of acute endurance exercise-induced cardiac autophagy and mitophagy and its possible role in cardioprotection
Published in
The Journal of Physiological Sciences, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12576-017-0555-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Youngil Lee, Insu Kwon, Yongchul Jang, Wankeun Song, Ludmila M. Cosio-Lima, Mark H. Roltsch

Abstract

Cardiac myocytes are terminally differentiated cells and possess extremely limited regenerative capacity; therefore, preservation of mature cardiac myocytes throughout the individual's entire life span contributes substantially to healthy living. Autophagy, a lysosome-dependent cellular catabolic process, is essential for normal cardiac function and mitochondria maintenance. Therefore, it may be reasonable to hypothesize that if endurance exercise promotes cardiac autophagy and mitochondrial autophagy or mitophagy, exercise-induced cardiac autophagy (EICA) or exercise-induced cardiac mitophagy (EICM) may confer propitious cellular environment and thus protect the heart against detrimental stresses, such as an ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury. However, although the body of evidence supporting EICA and EICM is growing, the molecular mechanisms of EICA and EICM and their possible roles in cardioprotection against an I/R injury are poorly understood. Here, we introduce the general mechanisms of autophagy in an attempt to integrate potential molecular pathways of EICA and EICM and also highlight a potential insight into EICA and EICM in cardioprotection against an I/R insult.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 15 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 16 46%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 October 2017.
All research outputs
#19,495,804
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Physiological Sciences
#221
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,312
of 316,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Physiological Sciences
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 316,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.