1,720,993 research outputs found

    New perspectives on osteogenesis imperfecta.

    No full text
    A new paradigm has emerged for osteogenesis imperfecta as a collagen-related disorder. The more prevalent autosomal dominant forms of osteogenesis imperfecta are caused by primary defects in type I collagen, whereas autosomal recessive forms are caused by deficiency of proteins which interact with type I procollagen for post-translational modification and/or folding. Factors that contribute to the mechanism of dominant osteogenesis imperfecta include intracellular stress, disruption of interactions between collagen and noncollagenous proteins, compromised matrix structure, abnormal cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions and tissue mineralization. Recessive osteogenesis imperfecta is caused by deficiency of any of the three components of the collagen prolyl 3-hydroxylation complex. Absence of 3-hydroxylation is associated with increased modification of the collagen helix, consistent with delayed collagen folding. Other causes of recessive osteogenesis imperfecta include deficiency of the collagen chaperones FKBP10 or Serpin H1. Murine models are crucial to uncovering the common pathways in dominant and recessive osteogenesis imperfecta bone dysplasia. Clinical management of osteogenesis imperfecta is multidisciplinary, encompassing substantial progress in physical rehabilitation and surgical procedures, management of hearing, dental and pulmonary abnormalities, as well as drugs, such as bisphosphonates and recombinant human growth hormone. Novel treatments using cell therapy or new drug regimens hold promise for the future

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore