↓ Skip to main content

Reporter-Based Isolation of Developmental Myogenic Progenitors

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Reporter-Based Isolation of Developmental Myogenic Progenitors
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00352
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eyemen Kheir, Gabriella Cusella, Graziella Messina, Giulio Cossu, Stefano Biressi

Abstract

The formation and activity of mammalian tissues entail finely regulated processes, involving the concerted organization and interaction of multiple cell types. In recent years the prospective isolation of distinct progenitor and stem cell populations has become a powerful tool in the hands of developmental biologists and has rendered the investigation of their intrinsic properties possible. In this protocol, we describe how to purify progenitors with different lineage history and degree of differentiation from embryonic and fetal skeletal muscle by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). The approach takes advantage of a panel of murine strains expressing fluorescent reporter genes specifically in the myogenic progenitors. We provide a detailed description of the dissection procedures and of the enzymatic dissociation required to maximize the yield of mononucleated cells for subsequent FACS-based purification. The procedure takes ~6-7 h to complete and allows for the isolation and the subsequent molecular and phenotypic characterization of developmental myogenic progenitors.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 29%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 43%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,945,904
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#7,247
of 13,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,453
of 329,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#236
of 436 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 329,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 436 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.