↓ Skip to main content

Cardiac cell proliferation assessed by EdU, a novel analysis of cardiac regeneration

Overview of attention for article published in Methods in Cell Science, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Cardiac cell proliferation assessed by EdU, a novel analysis of cardiac regeneration
Published in
Methods in Cell Science, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10616-014-9827-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bin Zeng, Suiyang Tong, Xiaofeng Ren, Hao Xia

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that mammalian hearts maintain the capacity for cardiac regeneration. Rapid and sensitive identification of cardiac cellular proliferation is prerequisite for understanding the underlying mechanisms and strategies of cardiac regeneration. The following immunologically related markers of cardiac cells were analyzed: cardiac transcription factors Nkx2.5 and Gata 4; specific marker of cardiomyocytes TnT; endothelial cell marker CD31; vascular smooth muscle marker smooth muscle myosin IgG; cardiac resident stem cells markers IsL1, Tbx18, and Wt1. Markers were co-localized in cardiac tissues of embryonic, neonatal, adult, and pathological samples by 5-ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine (EdU) staining. EdU was also used to label isolated neonatal cardiomyocytes in vitro. EdU robustly labeled proliferating cells in vitro and in vivo, co-immunostaining with different cardiac cells markers. EdU can rapidly and sensitively label proliferating cardiac cells in developmental and pathological states. Cardiac cell proliferation assessed by EdU is a novel analytical tool for investigating the mechanism and strategies of cardiac regeneration in response to injury.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 25%
Student > Bachelor 7 19%
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 6 17%
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 07 December 2014.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Methods in Cell Science
#786
of 1,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,831
of 367,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in Cell Science
#12
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 1,026 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 367,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.