↓ Skip to main content

The Mitotic Spindle

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 7: The Mitotic Spindle
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
The Mitotic Spindle
Chapter number 7
Book title
The Mitotic Spindle
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-3542-0_7
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-3540-6, 978-1-4939-3542-0
Authors

Good, Matthew C, Matthew C. Good

Editors

Paul Chang, Ryoma Ohi

Abstract

Methods are described for preparing Xenopus laevis egg and embryo cytoplasm and encapsulating extract spindle assembly reactions in cell-like compartments to investigate the effects of cell size on intracellular assembly. Cytoplasm prepared from the eggs or embryos of individual frogs is screened for the ability to form interphase nuclei and metaphase spindles, and subsequently packaged, along with DNA, into droplets of varying size using microfluidics. The dimensions of these cell-like droplets are specified to match the range of cell diameters present in early embryo development. The scaling relationship between droplets and spindles is quantified using live fluorescence imaging on a spinning-disk confocal microscope. By comparing the encapsulated assembly of spindles formed from cytoplasmic extracts prepared from embryos at distinct stages of Xenopus early development, the influence of cell composition and cell size on spindle scaling can be evaluated. Because the extract system is biochemically tractable, the function of individual proteins in spindle scaling can be evaluated by supplementing or depleting factors in the cytoplasm.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 38%
Student > Master 3 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 15%
Engineering 2 15%
Chemistry 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,459,684
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,924
of 13,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,526
of 393,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#846
of 1,471 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,130 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 393,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,471 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.