↓ Skip to main content

An historical perspective of the discovery of titin filaments –Part 2

Overview of attention for article published in Biophysical Reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
An historical perspective of the discovery of titin filaments –Part 2
Published in
Biophysical Reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12551-017-0393-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristobal G. dos Remedios

Abstract

In 2017, a Special Issue of Biophysical Reviews was devoted to "Titin and Its Binding Partners. The issue contained a review: "An historical perspective of the discovery of titin filaments" by dos Remedios and Gilmour that was intended to be a history of the discovery of the giant protein titin, previously named connectin. The review took readers back to the earliest discovery of the so-called third filament component of skeletal and cardiac muscle sarcomeres and ended in 1969. Recently, my colleague Shin'ichi Ishiwata gently reminded me of two papers published in 1990 and 1993 that were unwittingly omitted from the original historical perspective. In the first paper (J Cell Biol 110:53-62, 1990), Funatsu et al. examined the elastic filaments in skeletal muscle using a combination of light and electron microscopy, but they also measured resting as well as passive stiffness mechanical measurements to establish that connectin (titin) is responsible for both stiffness and fiber tension. In the second paper (J Cell Biol 120:711-724, 1993), Funatsu et al. used permeabilised cardiac muscle myocytes (from rabbit papillary muscles) and focussed on filament ultrastructure using either freeze-substitution or deep-etched replica methods to visualise connectin/titin filaments in fibers with and without actin and myosin filaments.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Unspecified 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 14%
Unspecified 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 4 29%
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 14 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,459,801
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Biophysical Reviews
#704
of 799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#379,321
of 442,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biophysical Reviews
#29
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 799 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 442,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.