↓ Skip to main content

Simple silicone chamber system for in vitro three-dimensional skeletal muscle tissue formation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
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 (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Simple silicone chamber system for in vitro three-dimensional skeletal muscle tissue formation
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2013.00349
Pubmed ID
Authors

Celia Snyman, Kyle P. Goetsch, Kathryn H. Myburgh, Carola U. Niesler

Abstract

Bioengineering skeletal muscle often requires customized equipment and intricate casting techniques. One of the major hurdles when initially trying to establish in vitro tissue engineered muscle constructs is the lack of consistency across published methodology. Although this diversity allows for specialization according to specific research goals, lack of standardization hampers comparative efforts. Differences in cell type, number and density, variability in matrix and scaffold usage as well as inconsistency in the distance between and type of adhesion posts complicates initial establishment of the technique with confidence. We describe an inexpensive, but readily adaptable silicone chamber system for the generation of skeletal muscle constructs that can readily be standardized and used to elucidate myoblast behavior in a three-dimensional space. Muscle generation, regeneration and adaptation can also be investigated in this model, which is more advanced than differentiated myotubes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 21%
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 17%
Engineering 11 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 11 15%
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 02 December 2013.
All research outputs
#15,235,403
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#6,487
of 13,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,939
of 280,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#181
of 398 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 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 13,539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 280,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 398 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 53% of its contemporaries.