↓ Skip to main content

The complexities and caveats of lineage tracing in the mammary gland

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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.
Title
The complexities and caveats of lineage tracing in the mammary gland
Published in
Breast Cancer Research, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13058-016-0774-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne C. Rios, Nai Yang Fu, Joseph Cursons, Geoffrey J. Lindeman, Jane E. Visvader

Abstract

Lineage tracing is increasingly being utilised to probe different cell types that exist within the mammary gland. Whilst this technique is powerful for tracking cells in vivo and dissecting the roles of different cellular subsets in development, homeostasis and oncogenesis, there are important caveats associated with lineage tracing strategies. Here we highlight key parameters of particular relevance for the mammary gland. These include tissue preparation for whole-mount imaging, whereby the inclusion of enzymatic digestion can drastically alter tissue architecture and cell morphology, and therefore should be avoided. Other factors include the scoring of clones in three dimensions versus two dimensions, the timing of induction, and the marked variability in labelling efficiency that is evident not only between different mouse models harbouring a similar gene promoter but also within a given strain and even within a single mammary gland. Thus, it becomes crucial to visualise extensive areas of ductal tissue and to consider the intricacies of the methodology for lineage tracing studies on normal mammary development and on potential 'cells of origin' of cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 25%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Master 3 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 16 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 16 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,783,193
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#1,286
of 2,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,925
of 416,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 416,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 54% of its contemporaries.