↓ Skip to main content

Nucleoplasmic bridges and tailed nuclei are signatures of radiation exposure in Oreochromis mossambicus using erythrocyte micronucleus cytome assay (EMNCA)

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Nucleoplasmic bridges and tailed nuclei are signatures of radiation exposure in Oreochromis mossambicus using erythrocyte micronucleus cytome assay (EMNCA)
Published in
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11356-015-5107-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Anbumani, Mary N. Mohankumar

Abstract

Gamma radiation-induced genetic perturbations in aquatic vertebrates is largely unknown at low-dose rate, especially in the wake of a nuclear disaster and/or other environmental outbreaks. Freshwater fish, Oreochromis mossambicus subjected to low-dose rate (2 mGy/min) at 2.5-, 5-, and 10-Gy doses, were analyzed for "exposure signatures" in blood samples drawn on days 3, 6, 12, 18, and 30, respectively. Significant dose-dependent increments in micronuclei frequency and other anomalies such as nucleoplasmic bridges and tailed nuclei were observed and exhibit a strong positive correlation, suggesting that they could be used as prospective signatures of radiation exposure. Similarly increased incidence of apoptosis and DNA repair machinery circuits at high and low doses were noted. This work highlighted "cytogenetic signatures" in fish and the sensitivity of these endpoints toward low-dose rate of radiation exposure.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 18%
Researcher 3 18%
Other 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 5 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 18%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,406,676
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#1,553
of 9,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,110
of 267,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#20
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 267,805 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.