↓ Skip to main content

Assessing effects on dendritic arborization using novel Sholl analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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
Assessing effects on dendritic arborization using novel Sholl analyses
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fncel.2015.00285
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate M. O'Neill, Barbara F. Akum, Survandita T. Dhawan, Munjin Kwon, Christopher G. Langhammer, Bonnie L. Firestein

Abstract

Determining the shape of cell-specific dendritic arbors is a tightly regulated process that occurs during development. When this regulation is aberrant, which occurs during disease or injury, alterations in dendritic shape result in changes to neural circuitry. There has been significant progress on characterizing extracellular and intrinsic factors that regulate dendrite number by our laboratory and others. Generally, changes to the dendritic arbor are assessed by Sholl analysis or simple dendrite counting. However, we have found that this general method often overlooks local changes to the arbor. Previously, we developed a program (titled Bonfire) to facilitate digitization of neurite morphology and subsequent Sholl analysis and to assess changes to root, intermediate, and terminal neurites. Here, we apply these different Sholl analyses, and a novel Sholl analysis, to uncover previously unknown changes to the dendritic arbor when we overexpress an important regulator of dendrite branching, cytosolic PSD-95 interactor (cypin), at two developmental time points. Our results suggest that standard Sholl analysis and simple dendrite counting are not sufficient for uncovering local changes to the dendritic arbor.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 144 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 18%
Student > Master 19 13%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 41 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 49 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 7%
Chemistry 3 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 48 33%
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 30 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,284,384
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#3,570
of 4,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,839
of 263,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#110
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 263,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.