| Title |
Consensus guidelines for the use and interpretation of angiogenesis assays
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Angiogenesis, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10456-018-9613-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrycja Nowak-Sliwinska, Kari Alitalo, Elizabeth Allen, Andrey Anisimov, Alfred C. Aplin, Robert Auerbach, Hellmut G. Augustin, David O. Bates, Judy R. van Beijnum, R. Hugh F. Bender, Gabriele Bergers, Andreas Bikfalvi, Joyce Bischoff, Barbara C. Böck, Peter C. Brooks, Federico Bussolino, Bertan Cakir, Peter Carmeliet, Daniel Castranova, Anca M. Cimpean, Ondine Cleaver, George Coukos, George E. Davis, Michele De Palma, Anna Dimberg, Ruud P. M. Dings, Valentin Djonov, Andrew C. Dudley, Neil P. Dufton, Sarah-Maria Fendt, Napoleone Ferrara, Marcus Fruttiger, Dai Fukumura, Bart Ghesquière, Yan Gong, Robert J. Griffin, Adrian L. Harris, Christopher C. W. Hughes, Nan W. Hultgren, M. Luisa Iruela-Arispe, Melita Irving, Rakesh K. Jain, Raghu Kalluri, Joanna Kalucka, Robert S. Kerbel, Jan Kitajewski, Ingeborg Klaassen, Hynda K. Kleinmann, Pieter Koolwijk, Elisabeth Kuczynski, Brenda R. Kwak, Koen Marien, Juan M. Melero-Martin, Lance L. Munn, Roberto F. Nicosia, Agnes Noel, Jussi Nurro, Anna-Karin Olsson, Tatiana V. Petrova, Kristian Pietras, Roberto Pili, Jeffrey W. Pollard, Mark J. Post, Paul H. A. Quax, Gabriel A. Rabinovich, Marius Raica, Anna M. Randi, Domenico Ribatti, Curzio Ruegg, Reinier O. Schlingemann, Stefan Schulte-Merker, Lois E. H. Smith, Jonathan W. Song, Steven A. Stacker, Jimmy Stalin, Amber N. Stratman, Maureen Van de Velde, Victor W. M. van Hinsbergh, Peter B. Vermeulen, Johannes Waltenberger, Brant M. Weinstein, Hong Xin, Bahar Yetkin-Arik, Seppo Yla-Herttuala, Mervin C. Yoder, Arjan W. Griffioen |
| Abstract |
The formation of new blood vessels, or angiogenesis, is a complex process that plays important roles in growth and development, tissue and organ regeneration, as well as numerous pathological conditions. Angiogenesis undergoes multiple discrete steps that can be individually evaluated and quantified by a large number of bioassays. These independent assessments hold advantages but also have limitations. This article describes in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro bioassays that are available for the evaluation of angiogenesis and highlights critical aspects that are relevant for their execution and proper interpretation. As such, this collaborative work is the first edition of consensus guidelines on angiogenesis bioassays to serve for current and future reference. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 23% |
| France | 2 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| Finland | 2 | 7% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 60% |
| Scientists | 10 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 830 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 830 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 167 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 92 | 11% |
| Researcher | 89 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 73 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 51 | 6% |
| Other | 115 | 14% |
| Unknown | 243 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 178 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 139 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 66 | 8% |
| Engineering | 47 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 26 | 3% |
| Other | 110 | 13% |
| Unknown | 264 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 30 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,128,143
of 25,601,426 outputs
Outputs from Angiogenesis
#15
of 591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,364
of 341,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Angiogenesis
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,601,426 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 591 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
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 341,514 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.