↓ Skip to main content

The Expanding Toolbox of In Vivo Bioluminescent Imaging

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
The Expanding Toolbox of In Vivo Bioluminescent Imaging
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2016.00150
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tingting Xu, Dan Close, Winode Handagama, Enolia Marr, Gary Sayler, Steven Ripp

Abstract

In vivo bioluminescent imaging (BLI) permits the visualization of engineered bioluminescence from living cells and tissues to provide a unique perspective toward the understanding of biological processes as they occur within the framework of an authentic in vivo environment. The toolbox of in vivo BLI includes an inventory of luciferase compounds capable of generating bioluminescent light signals along with sophisticated and powerful instrumentation designed to detect and quantify these light signals non-invasively as they emit from the living subject. The information acquired reveals the dynamics of a wide range of biological functions that play key roles in the physiological and pathological control of disease and its therapeutic management. This mini review provides an overview of the tools and applications central to the evolution of in vivo BLI as a core technology in the preclinical imaging disciplines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 114 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 21%
Researcher 23 20%
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Student > Master 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 26 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 8%
Engineering 7 6%
Chemistry 5 4%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 33 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,760,105
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#694
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,299
of 368,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#6
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 368,661 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.