Mass Spectrometry-Based Lipidomics
Springer US
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
| Chapter title |
Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Meibomian Gland Lipids.
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 11 |
| Book title |
Mass Spectrometry-Based Lipidomics
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-0716-1410-5_11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-07-161409-9, 978-1-07-161410-5
|
| Authors |
Jianzhong Chen, Chen, Jianzhong |
| Abstract |
The precorneal tear film keeps the eye surface moist and helps to maintain normal eye function. The outermost lipid layer of the tear film, which attenuates tear film evaporation, contains meibum secreted from the meibomian gland. Most meibum lipids are neutral, including wax esters (WEs), cholesteryl esters (CEs), and diesters (DEs), along with some polar lipids including free fatty acids (FFAs), O-acyl-ω-hydroxy fatty acids (OAHFAs), and trace phospholipids. Detection of neutral lipids by mass spectrometry (MS) is challenging due to interference from impurities, particularly when working with minute-volume meibum samples. Here, we describe procedures for sample preparation and MS analysis of these elusive meibum lipids that can be used to examine dry eye disease mechanisms. Because the method described here minimizes impurity peaks for lipids generally, neutral and otherwise, it may be applied to high-sensitivity analysis of other biological samples. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
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 10 May 2021.
All research outputs
#15,685,238
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#5,495
of 13,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#304,032
of 502,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#107
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,325 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 502,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.