The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 |
Screening Mammalian Cochlear Hair Cells to Identify Critical Processes in Aminoglycoside-Mediated Damage
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fncel.2018.00179 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hyun Woo Lim, Kwang Pak, Allen F. Ryan, Arwa Kurabi |
| Abstract |
There is considerable interest in discovering drugs with the potential to protect inner ear hair cells (HCs) from damage. One means of discovery is to screen compound libraries. Excellent screening protocols have been developed employing cell lines derived from the cochlea and zebrafish larvae. However, these do not address the differentiated mammalian hair cell. We have developed a screening method employing micro-explants of the mammalian organ of Corti (oC) to identify compounds with the ability to influence aminoglycoside-induced HC loss. The assay is based on short segments of the neonatal mouse oC, containing ~80 HCs which selectively express green fluorescent protein (GFP). This allows the screening of hundreds of potential protectants in an assay that includes both inner and outer HCs. This review article describes various screening methods, including the micro-explant assay. In addition, two micro-explant screening studies in which antioxidant and kinase inhibitor libraries were evaluated are reviewed. The results from these screens are related to current models of HC damage and protection. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Chile | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 54% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 August 2018.
All research outputs
#8,101,065
of 24,309,087 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#1,558
of 4,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,029
of 331,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#44
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,309,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,515 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 331,956 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 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 62% of its contemporaries.