↓ Skip to main content

Structural and Functional Recovery of Sensory Cilia in C. elegans IFT Mutants upon Aging

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Genetics, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Structural and Functional Recovery of Sensory Cilia in C. elegans IFT Mutants upon Aging
Published in
PLoS Genetics, December 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006325
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The majority of cilia are formed and maintained by the highly conserved process of intraflagellar transport (IFT). Mutations in IFT genes lead to ciliary structural defects and systemic disorders termed ciliopathies. Here we show that the severely truncated sensory cilia of hypomorphic IFT mutants in C. elegans transiently elongate during a discrete period of adult aging leading to markedly improved sensory behaviors. Age-dependent restoration of cilia morphology occurs in structurally diverse cilia types and requires IFT. We demonstrate that while DAF-16/FOXO is dispensable, the age-dependent suppression of cilia phenotypes in IFT mutants requires cell-autonomous functions of the HSF1 heat shock factor and the Hsp90 chaperone. Our results describe an unexpected role of early aging and protein quality control mechanisms in suppressing ciliary phenotypes of IFT mutants, and suggest possible strategies for targeting subsets of ciliopathies.

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 profiles of 9 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Master 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 21%
Neuroscience 8 15%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 9 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 29 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,248,629
of 34,359,530 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Genetics
#4,147
of 9,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,109
of 452,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Genetics
#89
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,359,530 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
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 452,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.