| Title |
Collagen–cellulose composite thin films that mimic soft-tissue and allow stem-cell orientation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10856-013-4940-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Terry W. J. Steele, Charlotte L. Huang, Evelyne Nguyen, Udi Sarig, Saranya Kumar, Effendi Widjaja, Joachim S. C. Loo, Marcelle Machluf, Freddy Boey, Zlata Vukadinovic, Andreas Hilfiker, Subbu S. Venkatraman |
| Abstract |
Mechanical properties of collagen films are less than ideal for biomaterial development towards musculoskeletal repair or cardiovascular applications. Herein, we present a collagen-cellulose composite film (CCCF) compared against swine small intestine submucosa in regards to mechanical properties, cell growth, and histological analysis. CCCF was additionally characterized by FE-SEM, NMR, mass spectrometry, and Raman Microscopy to elucidate its physical structure, collagen-cellulose composition, and structure activity relationships. Mechanical properties of the CCCF were tested in both wet and dry environments, with anisotropic stress-strain curves that mimicked soft-tissue. Mesenchymal stem cells, human umbilical vein endothelial cells, and human coronary artery smooth muscle cells were able to proliferate on the collagen films with specific cell orientation. Mesenchymal stem cells had a higher proliferation index and were able to infiltrate CCCF to a higher degree than small intestine submucosa. With the underlying biological properties, we present a collagen-cellulose composite film towards forthcoming biomaterial-related applications. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 15 | 22% |
| Chemistry | 8 | 12% |
| Materials Science | 6 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 18 | 27% |
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 15 May 2013.
All research outputs
#17,688,550
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#1,166
of 1,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,274
of 194,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#15
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,400 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. 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 194,057 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.