Article
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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Chapter title |
Isolation of Skeletal Muscle Stem Cells for Phenotypic Screens for Modulators of Proliferation
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 6 |
| Book title |
Phenotypic Screening
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-7847-2_6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-7846-5, 978-1-4939-7847-2
|
| Authors |
Aaron C. Hinken, Andrew N. Billin, Hinken, Aaron C., Billin, Andrew N. |
| Abstract |
Adult skeletal muscle contains a population of resident stem cells known as muscle stem cells (MuSC) or satellite cells. This population of cells is required for regeneration of functional myofibers after damage. Aging reduces the proliferative response of satellite cells post-injury. This deficient response is thought to contribute to slowed recovery of muscle function after damage in the elderly and may also contribute to age-related loss of muscle function (sarcopenia). Numerous techniques are now available for the isolation of highly purified satellite cells from mice and humans (Sherwood, et al. Cell 119:543-554, 2004; Cerletti, et al. Cell 134:37-47; 2008; Conboy, et al. Methods Mol Biol 621:165-173, 2010; Bareja, et al. PLoS One 9:e90398; 2014; Castiglioni et al. Stem Cell Rep 2:92-106, 2014; Charville, et al. Stem Cell Rep 5:621-632, 2015; Liu et al. Nat Protoc 10:1612-1624, 2015; Sincennes et al. Methods Mol Biol 1556:41-50, 2017), thus opening an opportunity to use satellite cells in phenotypic screens for regulators of satellite cell proliferation and differentiation. In this chapter, we describe a technique for the prospective isolation of mouse satellite cells that we have recently used in a phenotypic screen of a focused set of small molecules. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 25% |
| Researcher | 2 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 13% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
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 13 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,393,286
of 23,051,185 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#4,237
of 13,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,627
of 442,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#433
of 1,499 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,051,185 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,196 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 442,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,499 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 66% of its contemporaries.