↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Hypoxic regulation of osteoclast differentiation and bone resorption activity

Overview of attention for article published in Hypoxia, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Hypoxic regulation of osteoclast differentiation and bone resorption activity
Published in
Hypoxia, November 2015
DOI 10.2147/hp.s95960
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen J Knowles

Abstract

Bone integrity is maintained throughout life via the homeostatic actions of bone cells, namely, osteoclasts, which resorb bone, and osteoblasts, which produce bone. Disruption of this balance in favor of osteoclast activation results in pathological bone loss, which occurs in conditions including osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, primary bone cancer, and cancer metastasis to bone. Hypoxia also plays a major role in these conditions, where it is associated with disease progression and poor prognosis. In recent years, considerable interest has arisen in the mechanisms whereby hypoxia and the hypoxia-inducible transcription factors, HIF-1α and HIF-2α, affect bone remodeling and bone pathologies. This review summarizes the current evidence for hypoxia-mediated regulation of osteoclast differentiation and bone resorption activity. Role(s) of HIF and HIF target genes in the formation of multinucleated osteoclasts from cells of the monocyte-macrophage lineage and in the activation of bone resorption by mature osteoclasts will be discussed. Specific attention will be paid to hypoxic metabolism and generation of ATP by osteoclasts. Hypoxia-driven increases in both glycolytic flux and mitochondrial metabolic activity, along with consequent generation of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species, have been found to be essential for osteoclast formation and resorption activity. Finally, evidence for the use of HIF inhibitors as potential therapeutic agents targeting bone resorption in osteolytic disease will be discussed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 21 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 31 38%
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 02 November 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Hypoxia
#26
of 50 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,825
of 294,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hypoxia
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 50 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one scored the same or higher as 24 of them.
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 294,808 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.