↓ Skip to main content

Repulsive cues combined with physical barriers and cell–cell adhesion determine progenitor cell positioning during organogenesis

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Repulsive cues combined with physical barriers and cell–cell adhesion determine progenitor cell positioning during organogenesis
Published in
Nature Communications, April 2016
DOI 10.1038/ncomms11288
Pubmed ID
Authors

Azadeh Paksa, Jan Bandemer, Burkhard Hoeckendorf, Nitzan Razin, Katsiaryna Tarbashevich, Sofia Minina, Dana Meyen, Antonio Biundo, Sebastian A. Leidel, Nadine Peyrieras, Nir S. Gov, Philipp J. Keller, Erez Raz

Abstract

The precise positioning of organ progenitor cells constitutes an essential, yet poorly understood step during organogenesis. Using primordial germ cells that participate in gonad formation, we present the developmental mechanisms maintaining a motile progenitor cell population at the site where the organ develops. Employing high-resolution live-cell microscopy, we find that repulsive cues coupled with physical barriers confine the cells to the correct bilateral positions. This analysis revealed that cell polarity changes on interaction with the physical barrier and that the establishment of compact clusters involves increased cell-cell interaction time. Using particle-based simulations, we demonstrate the role of reflecting barriers, from which cells turn away on contact, and the importance of proper cell-cell adhesion level for maintaining the tight cell clusters and their correct positioning at the target region. The combination of these developmental and cellular mechanisms prevents organ fusion, controls organ positioning and is thus critical for its proper function.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Taiwan 1 4%
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 23 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 28%
Student > Bachelor 6 24%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Master 3 12%
Professor 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 16%
Mathematics 2 8%
Physics and Astronomy 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Other 3 12%

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 25 April 2016.
All research outputs
#5,483,295
of 7,601,780 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#10,195
of 11,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,912
of 267,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#715
of 788 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,601,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 267,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 788 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.