↓ Skip to main content

In utero Undernutrition Programs Skeletal and Cardiac Muscle Metabolism

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
In utero Undernutrition Programs Skeletal and Cardiac Muscle Metabolism
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00401
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brittany Beauchamp, Mary-Ellen Harper

Abstract

In utero undernutrition is associated with increased risk for insulin resistance, obesity, and cardiovascular disease during adult life. A common phenotype associated with low birth weight is reduced skeletal muscle mass. Given the central role of skeletal muscle in whole body metabolism, alterations in its mass as well as its metabolic characteristics may contribute to disease risk. This review highlights the metabolic alterations in cardiac and skeletal muscle associated with in utero undernutrition and low birth weight. These tissues have high metabolic demands and are known to be sites of major metabolic dysfunction in obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Recent research demonstrates that mitochondrial energetics are decreased in skeletal and cardiac muscles of adult offspring from undernourished mothers. These effects apparently lead to the development of a thrifty phenotype, which may represent overall a compensatory mechanism programmed in utero to handle times of limited nutrient availability. However, in an environment characterized by food abundance, the effects are maladaptive and increase adulthood risks of metabolic disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 20%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 18 28%
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 27 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,434,182
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#8,131
of 13,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,317
of 393,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#101
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,610 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 393,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.