| Title |
Human placenta-derived mesenchymal stem cells loaded on linear ordered collagen scaffold improves functional recovery after completely transected spinal cord injury in canine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science China Life Sciences, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11427-016-9002-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sufang Han, Zhifeng Xiao, Xing Li, Huan Zhao, Bin Wang, Zhixue Qiu, Zhi Li, Xin Mei, Bai Xu, Caixia Fan, Bing Chen, Jin Han, Yanzheng Gu, Huilin Yang, Qin Shi, Jianwu Dai |
| Abstract |
Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is a major challenge in the clinic. In this study, we sought to examine the synergistic effects of linear ordered collagen scaffold (LOCS) and human placenta-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hPMSCs) when transplanted into completely transected beagle dogs. After 36 weeks observation, we found that LOCS+hPMSCs implants promoted better hindlimb locomotor recovery than was observed in the non-treatment (control) group and LOCS group. Histological analysis showed that the regenerated tissue after treatment was well integrated with the host tissue, and dramatically reduced the volume of cystic and chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs) expression. Furthermore, the LOCS+hPMSCs group also showed more neuron-specific βIII-tubulin (Tuj-1)- and NeuN-positive neurons in the lesion area, as well as axonal regeneration, remyelination and synapse formation in the lesion site. Additionally, dogs in the LOCS+hPMSCs group experienced enhanced sprouting of both ascending (CGRP-positive) sensory fibers and descending (5-HT- and TH-positive) motor fibers at the lesion area. All these data together suggested that the combined treatment had beneficial effects on neuronal regeneration and functional improvement in a canine complete transection model. Therefore, LOCS+hPMSCs implantation holds a great promise for bridging the nerve defect and may be clinically useful in the near future. |
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 States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 53 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 10 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 11% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,063,822
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Science China Life Sciences
#391
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,613
of 317,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science China Life Sciences
#5
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 317,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.