↓ Skip to main content

Dscam-Mediated Cell Recognition Regulates Neural Circuit Formation

Overview of attention for article published in Annual Review of Cell & Developmental Biology, November 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
185 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
222 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
Dscam-Mediated Cell Recognition Regulates Neural Circuit Formation
Published in
Annual Review of Cell & Developmental Biology, November 2008
DOI 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.24.110707.175250
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daisuke Hattori, S. Sean Millard, Woj M. Wojtowicz, S. Lawrence Zipursky

Abstract

The Dscam family of immunoglobulin cell surface proteins mediates recognition events between neurons that play an essential role in the establishment of neural circuits. The Drosophila Dscam1 locus encodes tens of thousands of cell surface proteins via alternative splicing. These isoforms exhibit exquisite isoform-specific binding in vitro that mediates homophilic repulsion in vivo. These properties provide the molecular basis for self-avoidance, an essential developmental mechanism that allows axonal and dendritic processes to uniformly cover their synaptic fields. In a mechanistically similar fashion, homophilic repulsion mediated by Drosophila Dscam2 prevents processes from the same class of cells from occupying overlapping synaptic fields through a process called tiling. Genetic studies in the mouse visual system support the view that vertebrate DSCAM also promotes both self-avoidance and tiling. By contrast, DSCAM and DSCAM-L promote layer-specific targeting in the chick visual system, presumably through promoting homophilic adhesion. The fly and mouse studies underscore the importance of homophilic repulsion in regulating neural circuit assembly, whereas the chick studies suggest that DSCAM proteins may mediate a variety of different recognition events during wiring in a context-dependent fashion.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Germany 3 1%
France 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 205 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 27%
Researcher 46 21%
Student > Master 27 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Professor 12 5%
Other 35 16%
Unknown 26 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 97 44%
Neuroscience 39 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 14%
Chemistry 7 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 28 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 April 2009.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Annual Review of Cell & Developmental Biology
#399
of 671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,392
of 105,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annual Review of Cell & Developmental Biology
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. 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 105,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.