↓ Skip to main content

Dscam Proteins Direct Dendritic Targeting through Adhesion

Overview of attention for article published in Neuron, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
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.
Title
Dscam Proteins Direct Dendritic Targeting through Adhesion
Published in
Neuron, February 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.12.026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wael Tadros, Shuwa Xu, Orkun Akin, Caroline H. Yi, Grace Ji-eun Shin, S. Sean Millard, S. Lawrence Zipursky

Abstract

Cell recognition molecules are key regulators of neural circuit assembly. The Dscam family of recognition molecules in Drosophila has been shown to regulate interactions between neurons through homophilic repulsion. This is exemplified by Dscam1 and Dscam2, which together repel dendrites of lamina neurons, L1 and L2, in the visual system. By contrast, here we show that Dscam2 directs dendritic targeting of another lamina neuron, L4, through homophilic adhesion. Through live imaging and genetic mosaics to dissect interactions between specific cells, we show that Dscam2 is required in L4 and its target cells for correct dendritic targeting. In a genetic screen, we identified Dscam4 as another regulator of L4 targeting which acts with Dscam2 in the same pathway to regulate this process. This ensures tiling of the lamina neuropil through heterotypic interactions. Thus, different combinations of Dscam proteins act through distinct mechanisms in closely related neurons to pattern neural circuits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 91 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 34%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 10 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 35 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 10 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Neuron
#8,080
of 9,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,196
of 406,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuron
#101
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,545 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 406,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.