↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
33 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.
Article details
Title
Replacing the PDZ-interacting C-termini of DSCAM and DSCAML1 with epitope tags causes different phenotypic severity in different cell populations
Published in
eLife, September 2016
DOI 10.7554/elife.16144
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Different types of neurons in the retina are organized vertically into layers and horizontally in a mosaic pattern that helps ensure proper neural network formation and information processing throughout the visual field. The vertebrate Dscams (DSCAM and DSCAML1) are cell adhesion molecules that support the development of this organization by promoting self-avoidance at the level of cell types, promoting normal developmental cell death, and directing vertical neurite stratification. To understand the molecular interactions required for these activities, we tested the functional significance of the interaction between the C-terminus of the Dscams and multi-PDZ domain-containing scaffolding proteins in mouse. We hypothesized that this PDZ-interacting domain would mediate a subset of the Dscams' functions. Instead, we found that in the absence of these interactions, some cell types developed almost normally, while others resembled complete loss of function. Thus, we show differential dependence on this domain for Dscams' functions in different cell types.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 11 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 30%
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 30 July 2021.
All research outputs
#18,472,072
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from eLife
#13,158
of 13,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,396
of 294,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from eLife
#312
of 339 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.9. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 294,932 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 339 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.