↓ Skip to main content

The Placenta in Toxicology. Part IV

Overview of attention for article published in Toxicologic Pathology, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
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.
Title
The Placenta in Toxicology. Part IV
Published in
Toxicologic Pathology, April 2013
DOI 10.1177/0192623313482206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Göhner, Judit Svensson-Arvelund, Christiane Pfarrer, Jan-Dirk Häger, Marijke Faas, Jan Ernerudh, J. Mark Cline, Darlene Dixon, Eberhard Buse, Udo R. Markert

Abstract

This review summarizes the potential and also some limitations of using human placentas, or placental cells and structures for toxicology testing. The placenta contains a wide spectrum of cell types and tissues, such as trophoblast cells, immune cells, fibroblasts, stem cells, endothelial cells, vessels, glands, membranes, and many others. It may be expected that in many cases the relevance of results obtained from human placenta will be higher than those from animal models due to species specificity of metabolism and placental structure. For practical and economical reasons, we propose to apply a battery of sequential experiments for analysis of potential toxicants. This should start with using cell lines, followed by testing placenta tissue explants and isolated placenta cells, and finally by application of single and dual side ex vivo placenta perfusion. With each of these steps, the relative workload increases while the number of feasible repeats decreases. Simultaneously, the predictive power enhances by increasing similarity with in vivo human conditions. Toxic effects may be detected by performing proliferation, vitality and cell death assays, analysis of protein and hormone expression, immunohistochemistry or testing functionality of signaling pathways, gene expression, transport mechanisms, and so on. When toxic effects appear at any step, the subsequent assays may be cancelled. Such a system may be useful to reduce costs and increase specificity in testing questionable toxicants. Nonetheless, it requires further standardization and end point definitions for better comparability of results from different toxicants and to estimate the respective in vivo translatability and predictive value.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 34%
Student > Master 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 11 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 April 2013.
All research outputs
#20,187,333
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from Toxicologic Pathology
#941
of 1,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,450
of 199,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Toxicologic Pathology
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 199,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.