| Title |
A microfluidics-based method for measuring neuronal activity in Drosophila chemosensory neurons
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Protocols, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nprot.2016.144 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lena van Giesen, G Larisa Neagu-Maier, Jae Young Kwon, Simon G Sprecher |
| Abstract |
Monitoring neuronal responses to defined sensory stimuli is a powerful and widely used approach for understanding sensory coding in the nervous system. However, providing precise, stereotypic and reproducible cues while concomitantly recording neuronal activity remains technically challenging. Here we describe the fabrication and use of a microfluidics system that allows precise temporally restricted stimulation of Drosophila chemosensory neurons with an array of different chemical cues. The system can easily be combined with genetically encoded calcium sensors, and it can measure neuronal activity at single-cell resolution in larval sense organs and in the proboscis or leg of the adult fly. We describe the design of the master mold, the production of the microfluidic chip and live imaging using the calcium sensor GCaMP, expressed in distinct types of Drosophila chemosensory neurons. Fabrication of the master mold and microfluidic chips requires basic skills in photolithography and takes ∼2 weeks; the same devices can be used repeatedly over several months. Flies can be prepared for measurements in minutes and imaged for up to 1 h. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| France | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 23% |
| Researcher | 13 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 32% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 13% |
| Engineering | 7 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
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 08 December 2016.
All research outputs
#13,972,492
of 24,719,968 outputs
Outputs from Nature Protocols
#2,406
of 2,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,465
of 317,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Protocols
#26
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,719,968 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 2,872 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 317,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.