↓ Skip to main content

Developments in cell biology for quantitative immunoelectron microscopy based on thin sections: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Histochemistry and Cell Biology, June 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
9 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Developments in cell biology for quantitative immunoelectron microscopy based on thin sections: a review
Published in
Histochemistry and Cell Biology, June 2008
DOI 10.1007/s00418-008-0451-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Terry M. Mayhew, John M. Lucocq

Abstract

Quantitative immunoelectron microscopy uses ultrathin sections and gold particle labelling to determine distributions of molecules across cell compartments. Here, we review a portfolio of new methods for comparing labelling distributions between different compartments in one study group (method 1) and between the same compartments in two or more groups (method 2). Specimen samples are selected unbiasedly and then observed and expected distributions of gold particles are estimated and compared by appropriate statistical procedures. The methods can be used to analyse gold label distributed between volume-occupying (organelle) and surface-occupying (membrane) compartments, but in method 1, membranes must be treated as organelles. With method 1, gold counts are combined with stereological estimators of compartment size to determine labelling density (LD). For volume-occupiers, LD can be expressed simply as golds per test point and, for surface-occupiers, as golds per test line intersection. Expected distributions are generated by randomly assigning gold particles to compartments and expressing observed/expected counts as a relative labelling index (RLI). Preferentially-labelled compartments are identified from their RLI values and by Chi-squared analysis of observed and expected distributions. For method 2, the raw gold particle counts distributed between compartments are simply compared across groups by contingency table and Chi-squared analysis. This identifies the main compartments responsible for the differences between group distributions. Finally, we discuss labelling efficiency (the number of gold particles per target molecule) and describe how it can be estimated for volume- or surface-occupiers by combining stereological data with biochemical determinations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Chemistry 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 7 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 December 2020.
All research outputs
#8,064,660
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Histochemistry and Cell Biology
#247
of 926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,230
of 85,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Histochemistry and Cell Biology
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 926 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 85,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.