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.
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.
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 |
Differential Bone Loss in Mouse Models of Colon Cancer Cachexia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2016.00679 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea Bonetto, Joshua K. Kays, Valorie A. Parker, Ryan R. Matthews, Rafael Barreto, Melissa J. Puppa, Kyung S. Kang, James A. Carson, Theresa A. Guise, Khalid S. Mohammad, Alexander G. Robling, Marion E. Couch, Leonidas G. Koniaris, Teresa A. Zimmers |
| Abstract |
Cachexia is a distinctive feature of colorectal cancer associated with body weight loss and progressive muscle wasting. Several mechanisms responsible for muscle and fat wasting have been identified, however it is not known whether the physiologic and molecular crosstalk between muscle and bone tissue may also contribute to the cachectic phenotype in cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to clarify whether tumor growth associates with bone loss using several experimental models of colorectal cancer cachexia, namely C26, HT-29, and Apc(Min/+). The effects of cachexia on bone structure and strength were evaluated with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), micro computed tomography (μCT), and three-point bending test. We found that all models showed tumor growth consistent with severe cachexia. While muscle wasting in C26 hosts was accompanied by moderate bone depletion, no loss of bone strength was observed. However, HT-29 tumor bearing mice showed bone abnormalities including significant reductions in whole-body bone mineral density (BMD), bone mineral content (BMC), femoral trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV), trabecular number (Tb.N), and trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), but no declines in strength. Similarly, cachexia in the Apc(Min/+) mice was associated with significant decreases in BMD, BMC, BV/TV, Tb.N, and Tb.Th as well as decreased strength. Our data suggest that colorectal cancer is associated with muscle wasting and may be accompanied by bone loss dependent upon tumor type, burden, stage and duration of the disease. It is clear that preserving muscle mass promotes survival in cancer cachexia. Future studies will determine whether strategies aimed at preventing bone loss can also improve outcomes and survival in colorectal cancer cachexia. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 21 | 32% |
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 30 January 2017.
All research outputs
#17,855,900
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#7,194
of 13,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,759
of 421,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#125
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,705 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 421,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.