↓ Skip to main content

Intestinal epithelial stem cells do not protect their genome by asymmetric chromosome segregation

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, March 2011
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

patent
2 patents
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Intestinal epithelial stem cells do not protect their genome by asymmetric chromosome segregation
Published in
Nature Communications, March 2011
DOI 10.1038/ncomms1260
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The idea that stem cells of adult tissues with high turnover are protected from DNA replication-induced mutations by maintaining the same 'immortal' template DNA strands together through successive divisions has been tested in several tissues. In the epithelium of the small intestine, the provided evidence was based on the assumption that stem cells are located above Paneth cells. The results of genetic lineage-tracing experiments point instead to crypt base columnar cells intercalated between Paneth cells as bona fide stem cells. Here we show that these cells segregate most, if not all, of their chromosomes randomly, both in the intact and in the regenerating epithelium. Therefore, the 'immortal' template DNA strand hypothesis does not apply to intestinal epithelial stem cells, which must rely on other strategies to avoid accumulating mutations.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 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 %
United States 3 3%
Portugal 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 107 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 27%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Student > Master 7 6%
Other 6 5%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 7 6%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 57 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 8 7%
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 10 April 2014.
All research outputs
#6,093,212
of 31,591,940 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#49,781
of 76,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,261
of 147,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#40
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,591,940 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 76,221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 51.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 147,069 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 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.