↓ Skip to main content

Tissue growth constrained by extracellular matrix drives invagination during optic cup morphogenesis

Overview of attention for article published in Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Tissue growth constrained by extracellular matrix drives invagination during optic cup morphogenesis
Published in
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10237-016-0771-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alina Oltean, Jie Huang, David C. Beebe, Larry A. Taber

Abstract

In the early embryo, the eyes form initially as relatively spherical optic vesicles (OVs) that protrude from both sides of the brain tube. Each OV grows until it contacts and adheres to the overlying surface ectoderm (SE) via an extracellular matrix (ECM) that is secreted by the SE and OV. The OV and SE then thicken and bend inward (invaginate) to create the optic cup (OC) and lens vesicle, respectively. While constriction of cell apices likely plays a role in SE invagination, the mechanisms that drive OV invagination are poorly understood. Here, we used experiments and computational modeling to explore the hypothesis that the ECM locally constrains the growing OV, forcing it to invaginate. In chick embryos, we examined the need for the ECM by (1) removing SE at different developmental stages and (2) exposing the embryo to collagenase. At relatively early stages of invagination (Hamburger-Hamilton stage HH14[Formula: see text]), removing the SE caused the curvature of the OV to reverse as it 'popped out' and became convex, but the OV remained concave at later stages (HH15) and invaginated further during subsequent culture. Disrupting the ECM had a similar effect, with the OV popping out at early to mid-stages of invagination (HH14[Formula: see text] to HH14[Formula: see text]). These results suggest that the ECM is required for the early stages but not the late stages of OV invagination. Microindentation tests indicate that the matrix is considerably stiffer than the cellular OV, and a finite-element model consisting of a growing spherical OV attached to a relatively stiff layer of ECM reproduced the observed behavior, as well as measured temporal changes in OV curvature, wall thickness, and invagination depth reasonably well. Results from our study also suggest that the OV grows relatively uniformly, while the ECM is stiffer toward the center of the optic vesicle. These results are consistent with our matrix-constraint hypothesis, providing new insight into the mechanics of OC (early retina) morphogenesis.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 23%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 23%
Engineering 10 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,715,632
of 25,448,590 outputs
Outputs from Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
#406
of 526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,201
of 315,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,448,590 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 526 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. 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 315,112 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 3 of them.