↓ Skip to main content

What makes a RAG regeneration associated?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
What makes a RAG regeneration associated?
Published in
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnmol.2015.00043
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thong C., Dianna E. Willis

Abstract

Regenerative failure remains a significant barrier for functional recovery after central nervous system (CNS) injury. As such, understanding the physiological processes that regulate axon regeneration is a central focus of regenerative medicine. Studying the gene transcription responses to axon injury of regeneration competent neurons, such as those of the peripheral nervous system (PNS), has provided insight into the genes associated with regeneration. Though several individual "regeneration-associated genes" (RAGs) have been identified from these studies, the response to injury likely regulates the expression of functionally coordinated and complementary gene groups. For instance, successful regeneration would require the induction of genes that drive the intrinsic growth capacity of neurons, while simultaneously downregulating the genes that convey environmental inhibitory cues. Thus, this view emphasizes the transcriptional regulation of gene "programs" that contribute to the overall goal of axonal regeneration. Here, we review the known RAGs, focusing on how their transcriptional regulation can reveal the underlying gene programs that drive a regenerative phenotype. Finally, we will discuss paradigms under which we can determine whether these genes are injury-associated, or indeed necessary for regeneration.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 126 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 19%
Student > Bachelor 21 17%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Master 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 25 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 33 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 11%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 23 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,821,227
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#1,660
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,385
of 264,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 264,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.