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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cardiac regeneration in Xenopus tropicalis and Xenopus laevis: discrepancies and problems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cell & Bioscience, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13578-018-0230-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Souqi Liao, Wenyan Dong, Hui Zhao, Ruijin Huang, Xufeng Qi, Dongqing Cai |
| Abstract |
Two studies have recently focused on adult heart regeneration in Xenopus. While we reported on cardiac myogenic regeneration in Xenopus tropicalis after injury, Marshall and colleagues found no regeneration in an injured heart in Xenopus laevis. Here, we would like to join the discussion initiated by Marshall et al. who debated the methods and species differences in both studies. We agree with their view that the species difference in cardiac regenerative capacity could lead to different results in both of these studies. Moreover, we suggest that the age of the animals used in these studies could lead to differences in regeneration. A 5-year old X. laevis is much more advanced in age than a 1-year old X. tropicalis. The other reason for the discrepancies could be the size of the clot. Due to different resection protocols, the clot formed after the endoscopic resection performed by Marshall et al. was much larger than that after a conventional resection, as used in our study. Furthermore, the difference in the site of injury could influence the healing and regeneration differences. The influence of the organismal age, techniques used to induce injury and site of injury on regeneration need to be examined in detail to assess the regenerative potential of the amphibian heart. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Researcher | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 31% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 6% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
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 02 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,945,904
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Cell & Bioscience
#486
of 948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,981
of 326,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell & Bioscience
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 948 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 326,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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.