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 |
Neuronal Subtype Specification within a Lineage by Opposing Temporal Feed-Forward Loops
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cell, November 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.cell.2009.10.032 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Magnus Baumgardt, Daniel Karlsson, Javier Terriente, Fernando J. Díaz-Benjumea, Stefan Thor |
| Abstract |
Neural progenitors generate distinct cell types at different stages, but the mechanisms controlling these temporal transitions are poorly understood. In the Drosophila CNS, a cascade of transcription factors, the "temporal gene cascade," has been identified that acts to alter progenitor competence over time. However, many CNS lineages display broad temporal windows, and it is unclear how broad windows progress into subwindows that generate unique cell types. We have addressed this issue in an identifiable Drosophila CNS lineage and find that a broad castor temporal window is subdivided by two different feed-forward loops, both of which are triggered by castor itself. The first loop acts to specify a unique cell fate, whereas the second loop suppresses the first loop, thereby allowing for the generation of alternate cell fates. This mechanism of temporal and "subtemporal" genes acting in opposing feed-forward loops may be used by many stem cell lineages to generate diversity. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| China | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 2 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 191 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 55 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 46 | 23% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 31 | 15% |
| Unknown | 25 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 108 | 53% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 29 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 28 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 3% |
| Unknown | 24 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 February 2010.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cell
#16,207
of 17,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,689
of 108,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell
#87
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 59.1. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 108,540 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.