↓ Skip to main content

The Morphological Identity of Insect Dendrites

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, December 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The Morphological Identity of Insect Dendrites
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, December 2008
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000251
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hermann Cuntz, Friedrich Forstner, Juergen Haag, Alexander Borst

Abstract

Dendrite morphology, a neuron's anatomical fingerprint, is a neuroscientist's asset in unveiling organizational principles in the brain. However, the genetic program encoding the morphological identity of a single dendrite remains a mystery. In order to obtain a formal understanding of dendritic branching, we studied distributions of morphological parameters in a group of four individually identifiable neurons of the fly visual system. We found that parameters relating to the branching topology were similar throughout all cells. Only parameters relating to the area covered by the dendrite were cell type specific. With these areas, artificial dendrites were grown based on optimization principles minimizing the amount of wiring and maximizing synaptic democracy. Although the same branching rule was used for all cells, this yielded dendritic structures virtually indistinguishable from their real counterparts. From these principles we derived a fully-automated model-based neuron reconstruction procedure validating the artificial branching rule. In conclusion, we suggest that the genetic program implementing neuronal branching could be constant in all cells whereas the one responsible for the dendrite spanning field should be cell specific.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 8 6%
United States 4 3%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Greece 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 107 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 33%
Researcher 28 23%
Student > Master 14 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 8 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 65 52%
Neuroscience 20 16%
Computer Science 9 7%
Engineering 5 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 9 7%
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 01 October 2021.
All research outputs
#7,156,351
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#4,844
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,422
of 183,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#14
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 183,246 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 54% of its contemporaries.