↓ Skip to main content

The discovery of the growth cone and its influence on the study of axon guidance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
168 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
The discovery of the growth cone and its influence on the study of axon guidance
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnana.2015.00051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisa Tamariz, Alfredo Varela-Echavarría

Abstract

For over a century, there has been a great deal of interest in understanding how neural connectivity is established during development and regeneration. Interest in the latter arises from the possibility that knowledge of this process can be used to re-establish lost connections after lesion or neurodegeneration. At the end of the XIX century, Santiago Ramón y Cajal discovered that the distal tip of growing axons contained a structure that he called the growth cone. He proposed that this structure enabled the axon's oriented growth in response to attractants, now known as chemotropic molecules. He further proposed that the physical properties of the surrounding tissues could influence the growth cone and the direction of growth. This seminal discovery afforded a plausible explanation for directed axonal growth and has led to the discovery of axon guidance mechanisms that include diffusible attractants and repellants and guidance cues anchored to cell membranes or extracellular matrix. In this review the major events in the development of this field are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 165 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 21%
Student > Master 27 16%
Researcher 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 34 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 34 20%
Neuroscience 30 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 5%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 37 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 July 2022.
All research outputs
#5,550,854
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#353
of 1,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,465
of 280,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#10
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 280,148 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.