↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms of collective cell movement lacking a leading or free front edge in vivo

Overview of attention for article published in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Mechanisms of collective cell movement lacking a leading or free front edge in vivo
Published in
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00018-017-2489-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroyuki Uechi, Erina Kuranaga

Abstract

Collective cell movement is one of the strategies for achieving the complex shapes of tissues and organs. In this process, multiple cells within a group held together by cell-cell adhesion acquire mobility and move together in the same direction. In some well-studied models of collective cell movement, the mobility depends strongly on traction generated at the leading edge by cells located at the front. However, recent advances in live-imaging techniques have led to the discovery of other types of collective cell movement lacking a leading edge or even a free edge at the front, in a diverse array of morphological events, including tubule elongation, epithelial sheet extension, and tissue rotation. We herein review some of the developmental events that are organized by collective cell movement and attempt to elucidate the underlying cellular and molecular mechanisms, which include membrane protrusions, guidance cues, cell intercalation, and planer cell polarity, or chirality pathways.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 22%
Engineering 3 9%
Philosophy 1 3%
Materials Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 19%
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 04 July 2017.
All research outputs
#19,201,293
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#3,458
of 4,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,502
of 313,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#43
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 313,476 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.