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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Drosophila Dscam Proteins Regulate Postsynaptic Specificity at Multiple-Contact Synapses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuron, September 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.030 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Sean Millard, Zhiyuan Lu, S. Lawrence Zipursky, Ian A. Meinertzhagen |
| Abstract |
In both vertebrate and invertebrate visual systems, neurons form multiple-contact synapses at which a single presynaptic site releases neurotransmitter upon a discrete combination of different postsynaptic cells. Recognition mechanisms underlying the assembly of such synapses are not known. In Drosophila, photoreceptor terminals form tetrad synapses that incorporate an invariable pair of postsynaptic elements, one each from lamina interneuron L1 and L2, and two elements from other cells. Here, we demonstrate that Drosophila Dscam1 and Dscam2, genes encoding homophilic repulsive proteins, act redundantly to ensure the invariable combination of L1 and L2 postsynaptic elements at all tetrads. We demonstrate that this strict pairing is lost in Dscam1;Dscam2 double mutants. Thus, removing these two repulsive proteins allows elements from the same cell to incorporate into the same postsynaptic tetrad, altering the specificity of photoreceptor transmission. We propose that Dscams regulate synaptic specificity by excluding inappropriate partners at multiple-contact synapses. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Norway | 2 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 35% |
| Researcher | 24 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 14 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 57 | 47% |
| Neuroscience | 27 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 5% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 15 | 12% |
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 24 November 2012.
All research outputs
#7,356,550
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Neuron
#6,037
of 9,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,698
of 103,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuron
#51
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 103,828 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.