| Title |
Surpassing light-induced cell damage in vitro with novel cell culture media
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41598-017-00829-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John H. Stockley, Kimberley Evans, Moritz Matthey, Katrin Volbracht, Sylvia Agathou, Jana Mukanowa, Juan Burrone, Ragnhildur T. Káradóttir |
| Abstract |
Light is extensively used to study cells in real time (live cell imaging), separate cells using fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) and control cellular functions with light sensitive proteins (Optogenetics). However, photo-sensitive molecules inside cells and in standard cell culture media generate toxic by-products that interfere with cellular functions and cell viability when exposed to light. Here we show that primary cells from the rat central nervous system respond differently to photo-toxicity, in that astrocytes and microglia undergo morphological changes, while in developing neurons and oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (OPCs) it induces cellular death. To prevent photo-toxicity and to allow for long-term photo-stimulation without causing cellular damage, we formulated new photo-inert media called MEMO and NEUMO, and an antioxidant rich and serum free supplement called SOS. These new media reduced the detrimental effects caused by light and allowed cells to endure up to twenty times more light exposure without adverse effects, thus bypassing the optical constraints previously limiting experiments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 States | 6 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 12% |
| Germany | 2 | 8% |
| Austria | 1 | 4% |
| Israel | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 72% |
| Scientists | 4 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 160 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 25% |
| Researcher | 23 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 6% |
| Professor | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 14% |
| Unknown | 38 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 35 | 22% |
| Neuroscience | 26 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 25 | 16% |
| Engineering | 10 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 11% |
| Unknown | 42 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 21 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,414,734
of 25,383,344 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#13,686
of 139,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,472
of 304,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#487
of 4,240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 139,946 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 304,027 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.