↓ Skip to main content

DSCAMs: restoring balance to developmental forces

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
DSCAMs: restoring balance to developmental forces
Published in
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnmol.2012.00086
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew M. Garrett, Abigail L. D. Tadenev, Robert W. Burgess

Abstract

Many of the models of neurodevelopmental processes such as cell migration, axon outgrowth, and dendrite arborization involve cell adhesion and chemoattraction as critical physical or mechanical aspects of the mechanism. However, the prevention of adhesion or attraction is under-appreciated as a necessary, active process that balances these forces, insuring that the correct cells are present and adhering in the correct place at the correct time. The phenomenon of not adhering is often viewed as the passive alternative to adhesion, and in some cases this may be true. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that active signaling pathways are involved in preventing adhesion. These provide a balancing force during development that prevents overly exuberant adhesion, which would otherwise disrupt normal cellular and tissue morphogenesis. The strength of chemoattractive signals may be similarly modulated. Recent studies, described here, suggest that Down Syndrome Cell Adhesion Molecule (DSCAM), and closely related proteins such as DSCAML1, may play an important developmental role as such balancers in multiple systems.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 7%
China 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 39 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 34%
Neuroscience 8 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 November 2012.
All research outputs
#7,453,126
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#1,039
of 2,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,792
of 244,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#16
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,864 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 244,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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 62% of its contemporaries.