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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
3D structured illumination microscopy of mammalian embryos and spermatozoa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Developmental Biology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12861-015-0092-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jens Popken, Maik Dahlhoff, Tuna Guengoer, Eckhard Wolf, Valeri Zakhartchenko |
| Abstract |
Super-resolution fluorescence microscopy performed via 3D structured illumination microscopy (3D-SIM) is well established on flat, adherent cells. However, blastomeres of mammalian embryos are non-adherent, round and large. Scanning whole mount mammalian embryos with 3D-SIM is prone to failure due to the movement during scanning and the large distance to the cover glass. Here we present a highly detailed protocol that allows performing 3D-SIM on blastomeres of mammalian embryos with an image quality comparable to scans in adherent cells. This protocol was successfully tested on mouse, rabbit and cattle embryos and on rabbit spermatozoa. Our protocol provides detailed instructions on embryo staining, blastomere isolation, blastomere attachment, embedding, correct oil predictions, scanning conditions, and oil correction choices after the first scan. Finally, the most common problems are documented and solutions are suggested. To our knowledge, this protocol presents for the first time a highly detailed and practical way to perform 3D-SIM on mammalian embryos and spermatozoa. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 27 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 32% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 21% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 11% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 11% |
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 28 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,351,145
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from BMC Developmental Biology
#259
of 369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,813
of 387,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Developmental Biology
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 369 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 387,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.