↓ Skip to main content

Measuring the Poisson’s Ratio of Fibronectin Using Engineered Nanofibers

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

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.
Title
Measuring the Poisson’s Ratio of Fibronectin Using Engineered Nanofibers
Published in
Scientific Reports, October 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-13866-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

John M. Szymanski, Kairui Zhang, Adam W. Feinberg

Abstract

The extracellular matrix (ECM) is a fibrillar protein-based network, the physical and chemical properties of which can influence a multitude of cellular processes. Despite having an important role in cell and tissue signaling, a complete chemo-mechanical characterization of ECM proteins such as fibronectin (FN) is lacking. In this study, we engineered monodisperse FN nanofibers using a surface-initiated assembly technique in order to provide new insight into the elastic behavior of this material over large deformations. FN nanofibers were patterned on surfaces in a pre-stressed state and when released from the surface underwent rapid contraction. We found that the FN nanofibers underwent 3.3-fold and 9-fold changes in length and width, respectively, and that the nanofiber volume was conserved. Volume was also conserved following uniaxial extension of the FN nanofibers of ~2-fold relative to the patterned state. This data suggests that the FN networks we engineered formed an incompressible material with a Poisson's ratio of ~0.5. While the Poisson's ratio of cells and other biological materials are widely estimated as 0.5, our experimental results demonstrate that for FN networks this is a reasonable approximation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

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

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 22%
Engineering 7 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 12 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,920,810
of 24,831,063 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#47,094
of 135,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,301
of 332,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,638
of 4,890 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,831,063 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 135,884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 332,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,890 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.