↓ Skip to main content

NF-Protocadherin and TAF1 Regulate Retinal Axon Initiation and Elongation In Vivo

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroscience, January 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
NF-Protocadherin and TAF1 Regulate Retinal Axon Initiation and Elongation In Vivo
Published in
Journal of Neuroscience, January 2008
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.4490-07.2008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Piper, Asha Dwivedy, Louis Leung, Roger S. Bradley, Christine E. Holt

Abstract

NF-protocadherin (NFPC)-mediated cell-cell adhesion plays a critical role in vertebrate neural tube formation. NFPC is also expressed during the period of axon tract formation, but little is known about its function in axonogenesis. Here we have tested the role of NFPC and its cytosolic cofactor template-activating factor 1 (TAF1) in the emergence of the Xenopus retinotectal projection. NFPC is expressed in the developing retina and optic pathway and is abundant in growing retinal axons. Inhibition of NFPC function in developing retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) severely reduces axon initiation and elongation and suppresses dendrite genesis. Furthermore, an identical phenotype occurs when TAF1 function is blocked. These data provide evidence that NFPC regulates axon initiation and elongation and indicate a conserved role for TAF1, a transcriptional regulator, as a downstream cytosolic effector of NFPC in RGCs.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Turkey 1 2%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Professor 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 14%
Neuroscience 5 12%
Psychology 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 7 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 22 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,668,719
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroscience
#6,290
of 23,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,364
of 155,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroscience
#31
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 155,911 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.