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 |
Comparative analysis of ear-hole closure identifies epimorphic regeneration as a discrete trait in mammals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Communications, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/ncomms11164 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas R. Gawriluk, Jennifer Simkin, Katherine L. Thompson, Shishir K. Biswas, Zak Clare-Salzler, John M. Kimani, Stephen G. Kiama, Jeramiah J. Smith, Vanessa O. Ezenwa, Ashley W. Seifert |
| Abstract |
Why mammals have poor regenerative ability has remained a long-standing question in biology. In regenerating vertebrates, injury can induce a process known as epimorphic regeneration to replace damaged structures. Using a 4-mm ear punch assay across multiple mammalian species, here we show that several Acomys spp. (spiny mice) and Oryctolagus cuniculus completely regenerate tissue, whereas other rodents including MRL/MpJ 'healer' mice heal similar injuries by scarring. We demonstrate ear-hole closure is independent of ear size, and closure rate can be modelled with a cubic function. Cellular and genetic analyses reveal that injury induces blastema formation in Acomys cahirinus. Despite cell cycle re-entry in Mus musculus and A. cahirinus, efficient cell cycle progression and proliferation only occurs in spiny mice. Together, our data unite blastema-mediated regeneration in spiny mice with regeneration in other vertebrates such as salamanders, newts and zebrafish, where all healthy adults regenerate in response to injury. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 67% |
| Japan | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 33% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 184 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 12% |
| Researcher | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 30 | 16% |
| Unknown | 44 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 55 | 30% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 31 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 8 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 14% |
| Unknown | 48 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 14 May 2020.
All research outputs
#753,062
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#12,714
of 47,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,711
of 298,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#241
of 800 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 47,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 298,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 800 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 69% of its contemporaries.