↓ Skip to main content

An Overview of in vitro Methods to Study Microglia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
692 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
An Overview of in vitro Methods to Study Microglia
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fncel.2018.00242
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raissa Timmerman, Saskia M. Burm, Jeffrey J. Bajramovic

Abstract

Neuroinflammation is a common feature in neurodegenerative diseases and strategies to modulate neuroinflammatory processes are increasingly considered as therapeutic options. In such strategies, glia cells rather than neurons represent the cellular targets. Microglia, the resident macrophages of the central nervous system, are principal players in neuroinflammation and detailed cellular biological knowledge of this particular cell type is therefore of pivotal importance. The last decade has shed new light on the origin, characteristics and functions of microglia, underlining the need for specific in vitro methodology to study these cells in detail. In this review we provide a comprehensive overview of existing methodology such as cell lines, stem cell-derived microglia and primary dissociated cell cultures, as well as discuss recent developments. As there is no in vitro method available yet that recapitulates all hallmarks of adult homeostatic microglia, we also discuss the advantages and limitations of existing models across different species.

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 profiles of 3 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 692 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 692 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 122 18%
Researcher 100 14%
Student > Bachelor 88 13%
Student > Master 81 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 36 5%
Other 66 10%
Unknown 199 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 137 20%
Neuroscience 131 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 62 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 26 4%
Other 74 11%
Unknown 226 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 22 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,740,280
of 23,390,392 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#482
of 4,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,677
of 331,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#23
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,390,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 331,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.