↓ Skip to main content

Cilia

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 2: Cilia
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
4 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.
Chapter title
Cilia
Chapter number 2
Book title
Cilia
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-3789-9_2
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-3787-5, 978-1-4939-3789-9
Authors

Verdier, Patricia, Morthorst, Stine K, Pedersen, Lotte B, Patricia Verdier, Stine K. Morthorst, Lotte B. Pedersen

Abstract

A growing number of studies have used new generation technologies to characterize the protein constituents of cilia and centrosomes. This has led to the identification of a vast number of candidate ciliary or centrosomal proteins, whose subcellular localization needs to be investigated and validated. Here, we describe a simple and inexpensive method for analyzing the subcellular localization of candidate cilium- or centrosome-associated proteins, and we illustrate the utility as well as the pitfalls of this method by applying it to a group of ASH (ASPM, SPD-2, Hydin) domain-containing proteins, previously predicted to be cilia- or centrosome-associated proteins based on bioinformatic analyses. By generating plasmids coding for epitope-tagged full-length (FL) or truncated versions of the ASH domain-containing proteins TRAPPC8, TRAPPC13, NPHP4, and DLEC1, followed by expression and quantitative immunofluorescence microscopy (IFM) analysis in cultured human telomerase-immortalized retinal pigmented epithelial (hTERT-RPE1) cells, we could confirm that TRAPPC13 and NPHP4 are highly enriched at the base of primary cilia, whereas DLEC1 seems to associate specifically with motile cilia. Results for TRAPPC8 were inconclusive since epitope-tagged TRAPPC8 fusion proteins were unstable/degraded in cells, emphasizing the need for combining IFM analysis with western blotting in such studies. The method described should be applicable to other candidate ciliary or centrosomal proteins as well.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%

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 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#5,033,877
of 9,238,399 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#2,413
of 7,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,574
of 238,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,238,399 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,229 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 238,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 63% of its contemporaries.