↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Expansion Microscopy: Protocols for Imaging Proteins and RNA in Cells and Tissues

Overview of attention for article published in Current protocols in cell biology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 152)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
119 X users
patent
15 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
146 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
541 Mendeley
Title
Expansion Microscopy: Protocols for Imaging Proteins and RNA in Cells and Tissues
Published in
Current protocols in cell biology, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/cpcb.56
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shoh M. Asano, Ruixuan Gao, Asmamaw T. Wassie, Paul W. Tillberg, Fei Chen, Edward S. Boyden

Abstract

Expansion microscopy (ExM) is a recently developed technique that enables nanoscale-resolution imaging of preserved cells and tissues on conventional diffraction-limited microscopes via isotropic physical expansion of the specimens before imaging. In ExM, biomolecules and/or fluorescent labels in the specimen are linked to a dense, expandable polymer matrix synthesized evenly throughout the specimen, which undergoes 3-dimensional expansion by ∼4.5 fold linearly when immersed in water. Since our first report, versions of ExM optimized for visualization of proteins, RNA, and other biomolecules have emerged. Here we describe best-practice, step-by-step ExM protocols for performing analysis of proteins (protein retention ExM, or proExM) as well as RNAs (expansion fluorescence in situ hybridization, or ExFISH), using chemicals and hardware found in a typical biology lab. Furthermore, a detailed protocol for handling and mounting expanded samples and for imaging them with confocal and light-sheet microscopes is provided. © 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 119 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 541 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 541 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 116 21%
Researcher 98 18%
Student > Master 55 10%
Student > Bachelor 55 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 5%
Other 81 15%
Unknown 110 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 133 25%
Neuroscience 85 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 81 15%
Chemistry 25 5%
Engineering 23 4%
Other 70 13%
Unknown 124 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 83. 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 19 March 2024.
All research outputs
#526,554
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Current protocols in cell biology
#1
of 152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,154
of 343,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current protocols in cell biology
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 152 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 343,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them