↓ Skip to main content

Long-Term Development of Embryonic Cerebellar Grafts in Two Strains of Lurcher Mice

Overview of attention for article published in The Cerebellum, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Long-Term Development of Embryonic Cerebellar Grafts in Two Strains of Lurcher Mice
Published in
The Cerebellum, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12311-018-0928-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Cendelin, Zdenka Purkartova, Jakub Kubik, Erik Ulbricht, Filip Tichanek, Yaroslav Kolinko

Abstract

For many degenerative cerebellar diseases, currently, no effective treatment that would substantially restore cerebellar functions is available. Neurotransplantation could be a promising therapy for such cases. Nevertheless, there are still severe limitations for routine clinical use. The aim of the work was to assess volume and morphology and functional impact on motor skills of an embryonic cerebellar graft injected in the form of cell suspension in Lurcher mutant and wild-type mice of the B6CBA and C3H strains after a 6-month survival period. The grafts survived in the majority of the mice. In both B6CBA and C3H Lurcher mice, most of the grafts were strictly delimited with no tendency to invade the host cerebellum, while in wild-type mice, graft-derived Purkinje cells colonized the host's cerebellum. In C3H Lurcher mice, but not in B6CBA Lurchers, the grafts had smaller volume than in their wild-type counterparts. C3H wild-type mice had significantly larger grafts than B6CBA wild-type mice. No positive effect of the transplantation on performance in the rotarod test was observed. The findings suggest that the niche of the Lurcher mutant cerebellum has a negative impact on integration of grafted cells. This factor seems to be limiting for specific functional effects of the transplantation therapy in this mouse model of cerebellar degeneration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 10%
Researcher 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Unknown 6 60%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 2 20%
Sports and Recreations 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Unknown 6 60%
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 15 February 2018.
All research outputs
#16,272,032
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Cerebellum
#491
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,472
of 481,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Cerebellum
#14
of 22 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 481,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.