↓ Skip to main content

Axon Guidance Molecules and Neural Circuit Remodeling After Spinal Cord Injury

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotherapeutics, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Axon Guidance Molecules and Neural Circuit Remodeling After Spinal Cord Injury
Published in
Neurotherapeutics, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13311-015-0416-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edmund R Hollis

Abstract

…once the development was ended, the founts of growth and regeneration of the axons and dendrites dried up irrevocably. Santiago Ramón y Cajal Cajal's neurotropic theory postulates that the complexity of the nervous system arises from the collaboration of neurotropic signals from neuronal and non-neuronal cells and that once development has ended, a paucity of neurotropic signals means that the pathways of the central nervous system are "fixed, ended, immutable". While the capacity for regeneration and plasticity of the central nervous system may not be quite as paltry as Cajal proposed, regeneration is severely limited in scope as there is no spontaneous regeneration of long-distance projections in mammals and therefore limited opportunity for functional recovery following spinal cord injury. It is not a far stretch from Cajal to hypothesize that reappropriation of the neurotropic programs of development may be an appropriate strategy for reconstitution of injured circuits. It has become clear, however, that a significant number of the molecular cues governing circuit development become re-active after injury and many assume roles that paradoxically obstruct the functional re-wiring of severed neural connections. Therefore, the problem to address is how individual neural circuits respond to specific molecular cues following injury, and what strategies will be necessary for instigating functional repair or remodeling of the injured spinal cord.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 23%
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 19 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 26 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 14%
Engineering 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 21 24%
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 30 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#1,166
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,497
of 314,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 314,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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.