↓ Skip to main content

Calcium and cAMP Levels Interact to Determine Attraction versus Repulsion in Axon Guidance

Overview of attention for article published in Neuron, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Calcium and cAMP Levels Interact to Determine Attraction versus Repulsion in Axon Guidance
Published in
Neuron, May 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.035
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth M. Forbes, Andrew W. Thompson, Jiajia Yuan, Geoffrey J. Goodhill

Abstract

Correct guidance of axons to their targets depends on an intricate network of signaling molecules in the growth cone. Calcium and cAMP are two key regulators of whether axons are attracted or repelled by molecular gradients, but how these molecules interact to determine guidance responses remains unclear. Here, we constructed a mathematical model for the relevant signaling network, which explained a large range of previous biological data and made predictions for when axons will be attracted or repelled. We then confirmed these predictions experimentally, in particular showing that while small increases in cAMP levels promote attraction large increases do not, and that under some circumstances reducing cAMP levels promotes attraction. Together, these results show that a relatively simple mathematical model can quantitatively predict guidance decisions across a wide range of conditions, and that calcium and cAMP levels play a more complex role in these decisions than previously determined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
China 2 2%
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
France 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 108 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 32%
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 7%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 9 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 61 51%
Neuroscience 16 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 11%
Computer Science 6 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 8 7%
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 25 October 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
#101,652
of 175,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuron
#88
of 114 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 175,826 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.