↓ Skip to main content

Culturing murine embryonic organs: Pros, cons, tips and tricks

Overview of attention for article published in Differentiation, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 757)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Culturing murine embryonic organs: Pros, cons, tips and tricks
Published in
Differentiation, March 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.diff.2016.01.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn S. McClelland, Josephine Bowles

Abstract

There are three established techniques described for ex vivo culture of the early embryonic organs: filter culture, agar block culture and hanging drop culture. Each of these protocols has advantages and disadvantages; here we assess the merits of each approach. Agar block culture has a long history and has been well described. This method results in good embryonic organ morphology. Filter culture has been used to culture a number of different embryonic organs and there are a variety of filter choices available. The key disadvantage of agar-block and filter based culture is that the large amount of media required can make the approach expensive, especially if biologicals such as growth factors are necessary; in addition, using these methods it can be difficult to track particular samples. Hanging drop culture is most commonly used to enable the aggregation of embryonic stem cells into embryoid bodies but it has also been employed for ex vivo organ culture. This method requires only 40μL of media per drop and isolates every organ to a trackable unit. We describe each of these methods and the use of different medias and provide the user with a matrix to help determine the optimal culture method for their needs. Glass-based culture methods required for live imaging are not discussed here.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 18%
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 06 March 2023.
All research outputs
#3,274,410
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Differentiation
#37
of 757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,023
of 314,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Differentiation
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 757 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 314,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them