The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Functional Differences between GDNF-Dependent and FGF2-Dependent Mouse Spermatogonial Stem Cell Self-Renewal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reports, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.stemcr.2015.01.010 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Seiji Takashima, Mito Kanatsu-Shinohara, Takashi Tanaka, Hiroko Morimoto, Kimiko Inoue, Narumi Ogonuki, Mayumi Jijiwa, Masahide Takahashi, Atsuo Ogura, Takashi Shinohara |
| Abstract |
Spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) are required for spermatogenesis. Earlier studies showed that glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) was indispensable for SSC self-renewal by binding to the GFRA1/RET receptor. Mice with mutations in these molecules showed impaired spermatogenesis, which was attributed to SSC depletion. Here we show that SSCs undergo GDNF-independent self-renewal. A small number of spermatogonia formed colonies when testis fragments from a Ret mutant mouse strain were transplanted into heterologous recipients. Moreover, fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) supplementation enabled in vitro SSC expansion without GDNF. Although GDNF-mediated self-renewal signaling required both AKT and MAP2K1/2, the latter was dispensable in FGF2-mediated self-renewal. FGF2-depleted testes exhibited increased levels of GDNF and were enriched for SSCs, suggesting that the balance between FGF2 and GDNF levels influences SSC self-renewal in vivo. Our results show that SSCs exhibit at least two modes of self-renewal and suggest complexity of SSC regulation in vivo. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 22% |
| Researcher | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 22 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 33 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 28 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 11% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 27 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 February 2015.
All research outputs
#8,126,547
of 25,801,916 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reports
#1,532
of 2,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,072
of 369,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reports
#37
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,801,916 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 369,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.