↓ Skip to main content

Microtechnologies for studying the role of mechanics in axon growth and guidance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Microtechnologies for studying the role of mechanics in axon growth and guidance
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fncel.2015.00282
Pubmed ID
Authors

Devrim Kilinc, Agata Blasiak, Gil U. Lee

Abstract

The guidance of axons to their proper targets is not only a crucial event in neurodevelopment, but also a potential therapeutic target for neural repair. Axon guidance is mediated by various chemo- and haptotactic cues, as well as the mechanical interactions between the cytoskeleton and the extracellular matrix (ECM). Axonal growth cones, dynamic ends of growing axons, convert external stimuli to biochemical signals, which, in turn, are translated into behavior, e.g., turning or retraction, via cytoskeleton-matrix linkages. Despite the inherent mechanical nature of the problem, the role of mechanics in axon guidance is poorly understood. Recent years has witnessed the application of a range of microtechnologies in neurobiology, from microfluidic circuits to single molecule force spectroscopy. In this mini-review, we describe microtechnologies geared towards dissecting the mechanical aspects of axon guidance, divided into three categories: controlling the growth cone microenvironment, stimulating growth cones with externally applied forces, and measuring forces exerted by the growth cones. A particular emphasis is given to those studies that combine multiple techniques, as dictated by the complexity of the problem.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 21%
Student > Master 18 19%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 20 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 16%
Neuroscience 12 13%
Materials Science 11 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 16 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#13,742,163
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#1,975
of 4,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,623
of 262,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#49
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 262,972 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 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 63% of its contemporaries.