↓ Skip to main content

Material Exchange in Photoreceptor Transplantation: Updating Our Understanding of Donor/Host Communication and the Future of Cell Engraftment Science

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neural Circuits, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Material Exchange in Photoreceptor Transplantation: Updating Our Understanding of Donor/Host Communication and the Future of Cell Engraftment Science
Published in
Frontiers in Neural Circuits, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fncir.2018.00017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip E. B. Nickerson, Arturo Ortin-Martinez, Valerie A. Wallace

Abstract

Considerable research effort has been invested into the transplantation of mammalian photoreceptors into healthy and degenerating mouse eyes. Several platforms of rod and cone fluorescent reporting have been central to refining the isolation, purification and transplantation of photoreceptors. The tracking of engrafted cells, including identifying the position, morphology and degree of donor cell integration post-transplant is highly dependent on the use of fluorescent protein reporters. Improvements in imaging and analysis of transplant recipients have revealed that donor cell fluorescent reporters can transfer into host tissue though a process termed material exchange (ME). This recent discovery has chaperoned a new era of interpretation when reviewing the field's use of dissociated donor cell preparations, and has prompted scientists to re-examine how we use and interpret the information derived from fluorescence-based tracking tools. In this review, we describe the status of our understanding of ME in photoreceptor transplantation. In addition, we discuss the impact of this discovery on several aspects of historical rod and cone transplantation data, and provide insight into future standards and approaches to advance the field of cell engraftment.

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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 25%
Neuroscience 12 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 13 19%
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 19 March 2019.
All research outputs
#17,933,348
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#855
of 1,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,453
of 331,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#23
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 331,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.