| Title |
Progress in tear microdesiccate analysis by combining various transmitted-light microscope techniques
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biological Research, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40659-016-0089-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Felipe Traipe-Salas, Leonidas Traipe-Castro, Daniela Salinas-Toro, Daniela López, Felipe Valenzuela, Christian Cartes, Héctor Toledo-Araya, Claudio Pérez, Remigio López Solís |
| Abstract |
Tear desiccation on a glass surface followed by transmitted-light microscopy has served as diagnostic test for dry eye. Four distinctive morphological domains (zones I, II, III and transition band) have been recently recognized in tear microdesiccates. Physicochemical dissimilarities among those domains hamper comprehensive microscopic examination of tear microdesiccates. Optimal observation conditions of entire tear microdesiccates are now investigated. One-μl aliquots of tear collected from individual healthy eyes were dried at ambient conditions on microscope slides. Tear microdesiccates were examined by combining low-magnification objective lenses with transmitted-light microscopy (brightfield, phase contrasts Ph1,2,3 and darkfield). Fern-like structures (zones II and III) were visible with all illumination methods excepting brightfield. Zone I was the microdesiccate domain displaying the most noticeable illumination-dependent variations, namely transparent band delimited by an outer rim (Ph1, Ph2), homogeneous compactly built structure (brightfield) or invisible domain (darkfield, Ph3). Intermediate positions of the condenser (BF/Ph1, Ph1/Ph2) showed a structured roughly cylindrical zone I. The transition band also varied from invisibility (brightfield) to a well-defined domain comprising interwoven filamentous elements (phase contrasts, darkfield). Imaging of entire tear microdesiccates by transmitted-light microscopy depends upon illumination. A more comprehensive description of tear microdesiccates can be achieved by combining illumination methods. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 16% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 32% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
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 03 October 2017.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Biological Research
#286
of 642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,717
of 354,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Research
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 642 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 354,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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.