You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
MicroRNA-153 Regulates the Acquisition of Gliogenic Competence by Neural Stem Cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reports, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.06.006 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jun Tsuyama, Jens Bunt, Linda J. Richards, Hiroko Iwanari, Yasuhiro Mochizuki, Takao Hamakubo, Takuya Shimazaki, Hideyuki Okano |
| Abstract |
Mammalian neural stem/progenitor cells (NSPCs) sequentially generate neurons and glia during CNS development. Here we identified miRNA-153 (miR-153) as a modulator of the temporal regulation of NSPC differentiation. Overexpression (OE) of miR-153 delayed the onset of astrogliogenesis and maintained NSPCs in an undifferentiated state in vitro and in the developing cortex. The transcription factors nuclear factor I (NFI) A and B, essential regulators of the initiation of gliogenesis, were found to be targets of miR-153. Inhibition of miR-153 in early neurogenic NSPCs induced precocious gliogenesis, whereas NFIA/B overexpression rescued the anti-gliogenic phenotypes induced by miR-153 OE. Our results indicate that miR-mediated fine control of NFIA/B expression is important in the molecular networks that regulate the acquisition of gliogenic competence by NSPCs in the developing CNS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 7 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 28% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 27% |
| Neuroscience | 15 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 13% |
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 09 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,278,325
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reports
#1,606
of 2,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,474
of 275,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reports
#27
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 275,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.