↓ Skip to main content

C. elegans

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 4: C. elegans
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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.
Chapter title
C. elegans
Chapter number 4
Book title
C. elegans
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2842-2_4
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-2841-5, 978-1-4939-2842-2
Authors

Eliezer, Yifat, Zaslaver, Alon, Yifat Eliezer, Alon Zaslaver

Abstract

C. elegans offer a unique opportunity for understanding computation in neural networks. This is largely due to their relatively compact neural network for which a wiring diagram is available. Recent advances in genetic tools for interrogating neural activity (e.g., optogenetics) make C. elegans particularly compelling as they can be expressed in many different combinations in target individual neurons. Thus, the prospect to decipher principles underlying functionality in neural networks largely depends on the ease by which transgenic animals can be generated. Traditionally, to generate transgenic animals one would inject a plasmid containing the gene of interest under the regulation of the cell- or lineage-specific promoter. This often requires laborious cloning steps of both the gene and the promoter. The Hobert lab has developed a simpler protocol in which linear PCR fragments can be injected to generate transgenic animals. Relying on this PCR fusion-based method, here we provide a detailed protocol that we have optimized for expressing various genetically encoded calcium indicators and optogenetic tools in individual or sets of neurons. We use these simple procedures to generate multiple constructs within a very short time frame (typically 1-2 days).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 33%
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 33%
Chemistry 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,335,423
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#9,918
of 13,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#296,064
of 353,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#636
of 997 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,132 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 353,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 997 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.