↓ Skip to main content

The force-temperature relationship in healthy and dystrophic mouse diaphragm; implications for translational study design

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
The force-temperature relationship in healthy and dystrophic mouse diaphragm; implications for translational study design
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2012.00422
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason D. Murray, Benjamin D. Canan, Christopher D. Martin, Jenna E. Stangland, Neha Rastogi, Jill A. Rafael-Fortney, Paul M. L. Janssen

Abstract

In the field of muscular dystrophy, striated muscle function is often assessed in vitro in dystrophin-deficient mdx mice in order to test the impact of a potential treatment strategy. Although many past studies have assessed diaphragm contractile function at or near room temperature, the diaphragm performs in vivo at 37°C. To improve translation of bench-top results to possible clinical application, we studied temperature-dependence of contractile performance in wild-type (C57BL/10) and mdx muscle strips at temperatures from 25°C to 37°C. Maximal tetanic force in wild-type muscles was higher at 37°C (198 ± 11 vs. 155 ± 9 mN/mm(2) at 25°C), while the difference between wild-type and mdx was extremely similar: wild-type muscles produced 45.9% and 45.1% more force at 25°C and 37°C respectively. At 37°C twitch contraction kinetics and 50% rise time to tetanic plateau were slower in mdx diaphragm. A fatigue/injury protocol indicated 2-fold fatigue/contraction-induced force deficit in mdx muscles. We conclude that assessment of diaphragm muscle strips can be reliably and reproducibly performed at 37°C.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Argentina 1 6%
Unknown 14 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Student > Master 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 31%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 4 25%
Unknown 3 19%
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 07 November 2012.
All research outputs
#20,172,971
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,277
of 13,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,205
of 244,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#208
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,472 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 244,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.