↓ Skip to main content

Dorsal Lateral Geniculate Substructure in the Long–Evans Rat: A Cholera Toxin B Subunit Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Dorsal Lateral Geniculate Substructure in the Long–Evans Rat: A Cholera Toxin B Subunit Study
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnana.2012.00040
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire B. Discenza, Pamela Reinagel

Abstract

The pigmented rat is an increasingly important model in visual neuroscience research, yet the lamination of retinal projections in the dLGN has not been examined in sufficient detail. From previous studies it was known that most of the rat dLGN receives monocular input from the contralateral eye, with a small island receiving predominantly ipsilateral projections. Here we revisit the question using cholera toxin B subunit, a tracer that efficiently fills retinal terminals after intra-ocular injection. We imaged retinal termini throughout the dLGN at 0.5 μm resolution and traced areas of ipsilateral and contralateral terminals to obtain a high resolution 3D reconstruction of the projection pattern. Retinal termini in the dLGN are well segregated by eye of origin, as expected. We find, however, that the ipsilateral projections form multiple discrete projection zones in three dimensions, not the single island previously described. It remains to be determined whether these subdomains represent distinct functional sublaminae, as is the case in other mammals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Poland 1 4%
Unknown 24 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 38%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 10 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 2 8%
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 25 September 2012.
All research outputs
#15,245,883
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#784
of 1,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,162
of 244,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#20
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 244,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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.