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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of transepithelial resistance measurement techniques: Chopsticks vs. Endohm
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biological Procedures Online, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12575-017-0053-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca A. Sheller, Maria E. Cuevas, Maria C. Todd |
| Abstract |
TER measurements across confluent cellular monolayers provide a useful indication of TJ strength between epithelial and endothelial cells in culture. Having a reliable and accurate method of measuring cell-to-cell adhesion is critical to studies in pathophysiology and cancer metastasis. However, the use of different technical approaches to measure TER has reportedly yielded inconsistent measurements within the same cell lines. In the current study, we compared the peak TER values for the MDCK (canine kidney) and MCF-7 (human breast cancer) epithelial cell lines using two common approaches (Chopstick and Endohm) and two types of polymer inserts (PC and PET). Both cell lines demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the peak TERs obtained using the two different approaches. Further, the MDCK (but not the MCF-7) cells demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the peak TERs when using the same approach but different inserts. Our study indicates the importance of using a single approach when seeking to measure and compare the TER values of cultured cell lines. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 20% |
| Engineering | 6 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 24% |
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 03 September 2020.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Biological Procedures Online
#74
of 192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,439
of 325,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Procedures Online
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 192 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 325,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.