↓ Skip to main content

Climbing Fiber Development Is Impaired in Postnatal Car8wdl Mice

Overview of attention for article published in The Cerebellum, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Climbing Fiber Development Is Impaired in Postnatal Car8wdl Mice
Published in
The Cerebellum, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12311-017-0886-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren N. Miterko, Roy V. Sillitoe

Abstract

The cerebellum is critical for an array of motor functions. During postnatal development, the Purkinje cells (PCs) guide afferent topography to establish the final circuit. Perturbing PC morphogenesis or activity during development can result in climbing fiber (CF) multi-innervation or mis-patterning. Structural defects during circuit formation typically have long-term effects on behavior as they contribute to the phenotype of movement disorders such as cerebellar ataxia. The Car8 (wdl) mouse is one model in which early circuit destruction influences movement. However, although the loss of Car8 leads to the mis-wiring of afferent maps and abnormal PC firing, adult PC morphology is largely intact and there is no neurodegeneration. Here, we sought to uncover how defects in afferent connectivity arise in Car8 (wdl) mutants to resolve how functional deficits persist in motor diseases with subtle neuropathology. To address this problem, we analyzed CF development during the first 3 weeks of life. By immunolabeling CF terminals with VGLUT2, we found evidence of premature CF synapse elimination and delayed translocation from PC somata at postnatal day (P) 10 in Car8 (wdl) mice. Surprisingly, by P15, the wiring normalized, suggesting that CAR8 regulates the early but not the late stages of CF development. The data support the hypothesis of a defined sequence of events for cerebellar circuits to establish function.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Researcher 3 18%
Student > Master 2 12%
Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 4 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 7 41%
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 24 September 2017.
All research outputs
#16,272,032
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Cerebellum
#491
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,664
of 321,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Cerebellum
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 321,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.