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 |
Regulation of muscle plasticity and trophism by fatty acids: A short review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1806-9282.63.02.148 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Phablo Abreu, José Henrique Leal-Cardoso, Vânia Marilande Ceccatto, Sandro Massao Hirabara |
| Abstract |
The skeletal muscle tissue has a remarkable ability to alter its plastic structural and functional properties after a harmful stimulus, regulating the expression of proteins in complex events such as muscle regeneration. In this context, considering that potential therapeutic agents have been widely studied, nutritional strategies have been investigated in order to improve the regenerative capacity of skeletal muscle. There is evidence of the modulatory action of fatty acids, such that oleic and linoleic acids, that are abundant in Western diets, on muscle function and trophism. Thus, fatty acids appear to be potential candidates to promote or impair the recovery of muscle mass and function during regeneration, since they modulate intracellular pathways that regulate myogenesis. This study is the first to describe and discuss the effect of fatty acids on muscle plasticity and trophism, with emphasis on skeletal muscle regeneration and in vitro differentiation of muscle cells. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 30% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira
#363
of 1,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,839
of 424,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira
#10
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,105 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 424,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.