| Title |
Chitosan–gelatin biopolymers as carrier substrata for limbal epithelial stem cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10856-013-5013-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ana de la Mata, Teresa Nieto-Miguel, Marina López-Paniagua, Sara Galindo, María Rosa Aguilar, Luis García-Fernández, Sandra Gonzalo, Blanca Vázquez, Julio San Román, Rosa María Corrales, Margarita Calonge |
| Abstract |
The aim of this work was to evaluate semi-synthetic biopolymers based on chitosan (CH) and gelatin (G) as potential in vitro carrier substrata for human limbal epithelial cells (hLECs). To that end, human corneal epithelial cells (HCE) were cultured onto different CH-G membranes. None of the polymers were cytotoxic and cell proliferation was higher when CH was functionalized with G. Expression levels of corneal epithelial markers (K3, K12, E-caherin, desmoplakin, and zonula occludens (ZO)-1) were better maintained in HCE cells grown on CH-G 20:80 membranes than other proportions. Consequently, CH-G 20:80 was chosen for the subsequent expansion of hLECs. Cells derived from limbal explants were successfully expanded on CH-G 20:80 membranes using a culture medium lacking components of non-human animal origin. The expression levels found for corneal (K3 and K12) and limbal epithelial stem cells (K15) specific markers were similar to or higher than those found in limbal cells grown onto the control substratum. Our results demonstrate that CH-G 20:80 membranes are suitable for the expansion and maintenance of stem cells derived from the limbal niche. These results strongly support the use of polymers as alternative substrata for the transplantation of cultivated limbal cells onto the ocular surface. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 17% |
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 12% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 October 2013.
All research outputs
#4,978,221
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#98
of 1,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,943
of 213,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,542 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 213,171 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 79% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.