| Title |
Pluripotent Stem Cells as a Robust Source of Mesenchymal Stem Cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-016-9695-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlos D. Luzzani, Santiago G. Miriuka |
| Abstract |
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) have been extensively studied over the past years for the treatment of different diseases. Most of the ongoing clinical trials currently involve the use of MSC derived from adult tissues. This source may have some limitations, particularly with therapies that may require extensive and repetitive cell dosage. However, nowadays, there is a staggering growth in literature on a new source of MSC. There is now increasing evidence about the mesenchymal differentiation from pluripotent stem cell (PSC). Here, we summarize the current knowledge of pluripotent-derived mesenchymal stem cells (PD-MSC). We present a historical perspective on the subject, and then discuss some critical questions that remain unanswered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 40% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 22 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,600,699
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#57
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,368
of 317,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 317,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.