↓ Skip to main content

Chondrocyte channel transcriptomics

Overview of attention for article published in Channels, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Chondrocyte channel transcriptomics
Published in
Channels, November 2014
DOI 10.4161/chan.26071
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To date, a range of ion channels have been identified in chondrocytes using a number of different techniques, predominantly electrophysiological and/or biomolecular; each of these has its advantages and disadvantages. Here we aim to compare and contrast the data available from biophysical and microarray experiments. This letter analyses recent transcriptomics datasets from chondrocytes, accessible from the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI). We discuss whether such bioinformatic analysis of microarray datasets can potentially accelerate identification and discovery of ion channels in chondrocytes. The ion channels which appear most frequently across these microarray datasets are discussed, along with their possible functions. We discuss whether functional or protein data exist which support the microarray data. A microarray experiment comparing gene expression in osteoarthritis and healthy cartilage is also discussed and we verify the differential expression of 2 of these genes, namely the genes encoding large calcium-activated potassium (BK) and aquaporin channels.

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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 6%
Unknown 34 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Professor 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 12 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 36%
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 23 January 2015.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Channels
#295
of 398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,918
of 275,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Channels
#86
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 398 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 275,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 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.