↓ Skip to main content

Going out on a limb about regrowing an arm

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Going out on a limb about regrowing an arm
Published in
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10856-013-5047-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Buddy D. Ratner

Abstract

Starting with the observations that fetuses effortlessly grow limbs, fetuses heal wounds without scar and children up to the age of two can partially regrow amputated digits, the potential for adult humans to regrow limbs is explored. The process of limb growth in amphibians is reviewed with these steps summarizing the process: blood vessels contract to minimize bleeding; the injury site is covered by skin cells transforming into the apical epithelial cap which sends signals important for the next phases of the regrowth; resident fibroblasts leave the surrounding extracellular matrix and migrate across the amputation surface; migratory fibroblasts proliferate and dedifferentiate to form an aggregation of stemlike cells called the blastema; and the blastema coordinates the formation of a new limb. Other factors contributing to this process are: innervation, cell spatial "memory," chemical signals between cells, gene up and down regulation, cell differentiation (or dedifferentiation) and inflammatory cells. Remarkable discoveries have been made in all these areas in the last few years that might be integrated into technology for limb regeneration. In particular, the demonstration of the plasticity of supposedly "terminally differentiated" cells speak to the idea that mature cells at the amputation site might be harnessed for limb regrowth. Also, the demonstration that macrophages can be driven to a regenerative phenotype (M2) and they may also be stem-like is promising for complex regenerations. This article posits that scientific discoveries useful for limb regeneration have been made and now it is time to develop technology exploiting these discoveries to regrow limbs.

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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 30%
Student > Master 6 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 30%
Psychology 4 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 13%
Engineering 3 13%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 1 4%
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 23 October 2013.
All research outputs
#15,283,138
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#1,044
of 1,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,903
of 211,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 211,883 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.