↓ Skip to main content

Topological characterization of neuronal arbor morphology via sequence representation: I - motif analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Topological characterization of neuronal arbor morphology via sequence representation: I - motif analysis
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0604-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Todd A Gillette, Giorgio A Ascoli

Abstract

The morphology of neurons offers many insights into developmental processes and signal processing. Numerous reports have focused on metrics at the level of individual branches or whole arbors; however, no studies have attempted to quantify repeated morphological patterns within neuronal trees. We introduce a novel sequential encoding of neurite branching suitable to explore topological patterns. Using all possible branching topologies for comparison we show that the relative abundance of short patterns of up to three bifurcations, together with overall tree size, effectively capture the local branching patterns of neurons. Dendrites and axons display broadly similar topological motifs (over-represented patterns) and anti-motifs (under-represented patterns), differing most in their proportions of bifurcations with one terminal branch and in select sub-sequences of three bifurcations. In addition, pyramidal apical dendrites reveal a distinct motif profile. The quantitative characterization of topological motifs in neuronal arbors provides a thorough description of local features and detailed boundaries for growth mechanisms and hypothesized computational functions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 9%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 29 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 39%
Neuroscience 13 39%
Engineering 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 1 3%
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 09 July 2015.
All research outputs
#18,418,694
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,314
of 7,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,273
of 262,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#102
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 262,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.