↓ Skip to main content

Pattern Formation in the Longevity-Related Expression of Heat Shock Protein-16.2 in Caenorhabditis elegans

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Pattern Formation in the Longevity-Related Expression of Heat Shock Protein-16.2 in Caenorhabditis elegans
Published in
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11538-018-0482-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. M. Wentz, A. R. Mendenhall, D. M. Bortz

Abstract

Aging in Caenorhabditis elegans is controlled, in part, by the insulin-like signaling and heat shock response pathways. Following thermal stress, expression levels of small heat shock protein-16.2 show a spatial patterning across the 20 intestinal cells that reside along the length of the worm. Here, we present a hypothesized mechanism that could lead to this patterned response and develop a mathematical model of this system to test our hypothesis. We propose that the patterned expression of heat shock protein is caused by a diffusion-driven instability within the pseudocoelom, or fluid-filled cavity, that borders the intestinal cells in C. elegans. This instability is due to the interactions between two classes of insulin-like peptides that serve antagonistic roles. We examine output from the developed model and compare it to experimental data on heat shock protein expression. Given biologically bounded parameters, the model presented is capable of producing patterns similar to what is observed experimentally and provides a first step in mathematically modeling aging-related mechanisms in C. elegans.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Student > Master 2 25%
Other 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 2 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Physics and Astronomy 1 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 25%
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 08 October 2018.
All research outputs
#13,387,978
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#521
of 1,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,459
of 331,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#17
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,105 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 331,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.