↓ Skip to main content

Is Smaller Better? A Proposal to Use Bacteria For Neuroscientific Modeling

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, February 2018
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Is Smaller Better? A Proposal to Use Bacteria For Neuroscientific Modeling
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2018.00007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Archana Ram, Andrew W. Lo

Abstract

Bacteria are easily characterizable model organisms with an impressively complicated set of abilities. Among them is quorum sensing, a cell-cell signaling system that may have a common evolutionary origin with eukaryotic cell-cell signaling. The two systems are behaviorally similar, but quorum sensing in bacteria is more easily studied in depth than cell-cell signaling in eukaryotes. Because of this comparative ease of study, bacterial dynamics are also more suited to direct interpretation than eukaryotic dynamics, e.g., those of the neuron. Here we review literature on neuron-like qualities of bacterial colonies and biofilms, including ion-based and hormonal signaling, and a phenomenon similar to the graded action potential. This suggests that bacteria could be used to help create more accurate and detailed biological models in neuroscientific research. More speculatively, bacterial systems may be considered an analog for neurons in biologically based computational research, allowing models to better harness the tremendous ability of biological organisms to process information and make decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 20%
Engineering 7 14%
Physics and Astronomy 4 8%
Computer Science 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 7 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 March 2023.
All research outputs
#4,564,298
of 25,364,603 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#200
of 1,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,007
of 343,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#6
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,364,603 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 343,861 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 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.