↓ Skip to main content

Ulk4 Regulates Neural Stem Cell Pool

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cells, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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.
Title
Ulk4 Regulates Neural Stem Cell Pool
Published in
Stem Cells, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/stem.2423
Pubmed ID
Authors

Min Liu, Zhenlong Guan, Qin Shen, Frances Flinter, Laura Domínguez, Joo Wook Ahn, David A. Collier, Timothy O'Brien, Sanbing Shen

Abstract

The size of neural stem cell (NSC) pool at birth determines the starting point of adult neurogenesis. Aberrant neurogenesis is associated with major mental illness, in which ULK4 is proposed as a rare risk factor. Little is known about factors regulating the NSC pool, or function of the ULK4. Here we showed that Ulk4(tm1a/tm1a) mice displayed a dramatically reduced NSC pool at birth. Ulk4 was expressed in a cell cycle-dependent manner and peaked in G2/M phases. Targeted disruption of the Ulk4 perturbed mid-neurogenesis and significantly reduced cerebral cortex in postnatal mice. Pathway analyses of dysregulated genes in Ulk4(tm1a/tm1a) mice revealed Ulk4 as a key regulator of cell cycle and NSC proliferation, partially through regulation of the Wnt signaling. In addition we identified hemizygous deletion of ULK4 gene in 1.2/1000 patients with pleiotropic symptoms including severe language delay and learning difficulties. ULK4, therefore, may significantly contribute to neurodevelopmental, neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 22%
Professor 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Researcher 3 17%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 33%
Neuroscience 5 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Unknown 1 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,139,910
of 13,492,252 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cells
#2,316
of 3,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,568
of 266,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cells
#39
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,492,252 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 266,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.