↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Nanofibrillar scaffolds induce preferential activation of Rho GTPases in cerebral cortical astrocytes

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Nanofibrillar scaffolds induce preferential activation of Rho GTPases in cerebral cortical astrocytes
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, July 2012
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s32681
Pubmed ID
Authors

Volkan Mujdat Tiryaki, Virginia M Ayres, Adeel A Khan, Ijaz Ahmed, David I Shreiber, Sally Meiners

Abstract

Cerebral cortical astrocyte responses to polyamide nanofibrillar scaffolds versus poly-L-lysine (PLL)-functionalized planar glass, unfunctionalized planar Aclar coverslips, and PLL-functionalized planar Aclar surfaces were investigated by atomic force microscopy and immunocytochemistry. The physical properties of the cell culture environments were evaluated using contact angle and surface roughness measurements and compared. Astrocyte morphological responses, including filopodia, lamellipodia, and stress fiber formation, and stellation were imaged using atomic force microscopy and phalloidin staining for F-actin. Activation of the corresponding Rho GTPase regulators was investigated using immunolabeling with Cdc42, Rac1, and RhoA. Astrocytes cultured on the nanofibrillar scaffolds showed a unique response that included stellation, cell-cell interactions by stellate processes, and evidence of depression of RhoA. The results support the hypothesis that the extracellular environment can trigger preferential activation of members of the Rho GTPase family, with demonstrable morphological consequences for cerebral cortical astrocytes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 28%
Researcher 6 21%
Other 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Engineering 5 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 24%
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 20 July 2012.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#3,113
of 4,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,620
of 177,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#75
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,077 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 177,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.