↓ Skip to main content

Engineering oscillating microtubule bundles.

Overview of attention for article published in Methods in enzymology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Engineering oscillating microtubule bundles.
Published in
Methods in enzymology, January 2013
DOI 10.1016/b978-0-12-397945-2.00012-3
Pubmed ID
Abstract

From motility of simple protists to determining the handedness of complex vertebrates, highly conserved eukaryotic cilia and flagella are essential for the reproduction and survival of many biological organisms. Despite extensive studies, the exact mechanism by which individual components coordinate their activity to produce ciliary beating patterns remains unknown. We describe a novel approach toward studying ciliary beating. Instead of deconstructing a fully functional organelle from the top-down, we describe a process by which synthetic cilia-like structures are assembled from the bottom-up and we present methods for engineering such structures. We demonstrate how simple mixtures of microtubules, kinesin clusters, and a bundling agent assemble into structures that produce spontaneous oscillations, suggesting that self-organized beating may be a generic feature of internally driven bundles. Synthetic cilia-like structures can be assembled at high density, leading to synchronization and metachronal traveling waves, reminiscent of the waves seen in biological ciliary fields.

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.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 41%
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Master 3 5%
Other 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 19 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 14%
Materials Science 4 7%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 11 19%
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 19 March 2013.
All research outputs
#18,345,259
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Methods in enzymology
#2,044
of 2,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,474
of 284,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in enzymology
#49
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,653 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 284,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.