↓ Skip to main content

Cell-Type Dependent Effect of Surface-Patterned Microdot Arrays on Neuronal Growth

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Cell-Type Dependent Effect of Surface-Patterned Microdot Arrays on Neuronal Growth
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00217
Pubmed ID
Authors

Min Jee Jang, Woon Ryoung Kim, Sunghoon Joo, Jae Ryun Ryu, Eunsoo Lee, Yoonkey Nam, Woong Sun

Abstract

Surface micropatterns have been widely used as chemical cues to control the microenvironment of cultured neurons, particularly for neurobiological assays and neurochip designs. However, the cell-type dependency on the interactions between neurons and underlying micropatterns has been rarely investigated despite the inherent differences in the morphology of neuronal types. In this study, we used surface-printed microdot arrays to investigate the effect of the same micropatterns on the growth of mouse spinal interneuron, mouse hippocampal neurons, and rat hippocampal neurons. While mouse hippocampal neurons showed no significantly different growth on control and patterned substrates, we found the microdot arrays had different effects on early neuronal growth depending on the cell type; spinal interneurons tended to grow faster in length, whereas hippocampal neurons tended to form more axon collateral branches in response to the microdot arrays. Although there was a similar trend in the neurite length and branch number of both neurons changed across the microdot arrays with the expanded range of size and spacing, the dominant responses of each neuron, neurite elongation of mouse spinal interneurons and branching augmentation of rat hippocampal neurons were still preserved. Therefore, our results demonstrate that the same design of micropatterns could cause different neuronal growth results, raising an intriguing issue of considering cell types in neural interface designs.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Singapore 1 4%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 26%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 19%
Neuroscience 5 19%
Engineering 5 19%
Materials Science 3 11%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 26%
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 18 May 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7,423
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,739
of 349,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#131
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 349,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.