↓ Skip to main content

Endocrine FGFs: Evolution, Physiology, Pathophysiology, and Pharmacotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in endocrinology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Endocrine FGFs: Evolution, Physiology, Pathophysiology, and Pharmacotherapy
Published in
Frontiers in endocrinology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fendo.2015.00154
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nobuyuki Itoh, Hiroya Ohta, Morichika Konishi

Abstract

The human fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family comprises 22 structurally related polypeptides that play crucial roles in neuronal functions, development, and metabolism. FGFs are classified as intracrine, paracrine, and endocrine FGFs based on their action mechanisms. Paracrine and endocrine FGFs are secreted signaling molecules by acting via cell-surface FGF receptors (FGFRs). Paracrine FGFs require heparan sulfate as a cofactor for FGFRs. In contrast, endocrine FGFs, comprising FGF19, FGF21, and FGF23, require α-Klotho or β-Klotho as a cofactor for FGFRs. Endocrine FGFs, which are specific to vertebrates, lost heparan sulfate-binding affinity and acquired a systemic signaling system with α-Klotho or β-Klotho during early vertebrate evolution. The phenotypes of endocrine FGF knockout mice indicate that they play roles in metabolism including bile acid, energy, and phosphate/active vitamin D metabolism. Accumulated evidence for the involvement of endocrine FGFs in human genetic and metabolic diseases also indicates their pathophysiological roles in metabolic diseases, potential risk factors for metabolic diseases, and useful biomarkers for metabolic diseases. The therapeutic utility of endocrine FGFs is currently being developed. These findings provide new insights into the physiological and pathophysiological roles of endocrine FGFs and potential diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for metabolic diseases.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 100 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Master 11 11%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 31 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 34 33%
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 29 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in endocrinology
#6,734
of 13,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,570
of 286,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in endocrinology
#30
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 13,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 286,195 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.