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 |
The wing-spot and the comet tests as useful assays detecting genotoxicity in Drosophila.
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 23 |
| Book title |
Genotoxicity Assessment
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-62703-529-3_23 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-62703-528-6, 978-1-62703-529-3
|
| Authors |
Ricard Marcos, Erico R. Carmona |
| Abstract |
In spite of its pioneer use in detecting mutational processes, Drosophila has yet an important role in studies aiming to detect and quantify the induction of DNA damage. Here we describe two assays, one detecting primary damage (the Comet assay) and the other detecting somatic mutation and recombination effects (wing-spot test). It is important to emphasize that somatic recombination is a key event in cancer and no assays exist to detect and quantify somatic recombination processes, other than the spot tests developed in Drosophila. |
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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 20% |
| Researcher | 2 | 20% |
| Professor | 1 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 20% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 10% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 10% |
| Engineering | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
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 24 March 2014.
All research outputs
#15,866,607
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#5,555
of 13,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,695
of 284,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#176
of 335 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 13,410 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 284,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 335 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.