↓ Skip to main content

Lis1 regulates asymmetric division in hematopoietic stem cells and in leukemia

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Genetics, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Lis1 regulates asymmetric division in hematopoietic stem cells and in leukemia
Published in
Nature Genetics, February 2014
DOI 10.1038/ng.2889
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bryan Zimdahl, Takahiro Ito, Allen Blevins, Jeevisha Bajaj, Takaaki Konuma, Joi Weeks, Claire S Koechlein, Hyog Young Kwon, Omead Arami, David Rizzieri, H Elizabeth Broome, Charles Chuah, Vivian G Oehler, Roman Sasik, Gary Hardiman, Tannishtha Reya

Abstract

Cell fate can be controlled through asymmetric division and segregation of protein determinants, but the regulation of this process in the hematopoietic system is poorly understood. Here we show that the dynein-binding protein Lis1 is critically required for hematopoietic stem cell function and leukemogenesis. Conditional deletion of Lis1 (also known as Pafah1b1) in the hematopoietic system led to a severe bloodless phenotype, depletion of the stem cell pool and embryonic lethality. Further, real-time imaging revealed that loss of Lis1 caused defects in spindle positioning and inheritance of cell fate determinants, triggering accelerated differentiation. Finally, deletion of Lis1 blocked the propagation of myeloid leukemia and led to a marked improvement in survival, suggesting that Lis1 is also required for oncogenic growth. These data identify a key role for Lis1 in hematopoietic stem cells and mark its directed control of asymmetric division as a critical regulator of normal and malignant hematopoietic development.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 139 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 26%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 14 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 61 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 11%
Engineering 5 3%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 14 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 05 May 2015.
All research outputs
#439,756
of 17,897,867 outputs
Outputs from Nature Genetics
#1,012
of 6,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,042
of 266,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Genetics
#19
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,897,867 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 6,700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 266,510 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.