↓ Skip to main content

Genome Editing and Muscle Stem Cells as a Therapeutic Tool for Muscular Dystrophies

Overview of attention for article published in Current Stem Cell Reports, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Genome Editing and Muscle Stem Cells as a Therapeutic Tool for Muscular Dystrophies
Published in
Current Stem Cell Reports, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40778-017-0076-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veronica Pini, Jennifer E. Morgan, Francesco Muntoni, Helen C. O’Neill

Abstract

Muscular dystrophies are a group of severe degenerative disorders characterized by muscle fiber degeneration and death. Therapies designed to restore muscle homeostasis and to replace dying fibers are being experimented, but none of those in clinical trials are suitable to permanently address individual gene mutation. The purpose of this review is to discuss genome editing tools such as CRISPR/Cas (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated), which enable direct sequence alteration and could potentially be adopted to correct the genetic defect leading to muscle impairment. Recent findings show that advances in gene therapy, when combined with traditional viral vector-based approaches, are bringing the field of regenerative medicine closer to precision-based medicine. The use of such programmable nucleases is proving beneficial for the creation of more accurate in vitro and in vivo disease models. Several gene and cell-therapy studies have been performed on satellite cells, the primary skeletal muscle stem cells involved in muscle regeneration. However, these have mainly been based on artificial replacement or augmentation of the missing protein. Satellite cells are a particularly appealing target to address these innovative technologies for the treatment of muscular dystrophies.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 June 2017.
All research outputs
#13,825,452
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Current Stem Cell Reports
#12
of 19 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,992
of 310,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Stem Cell Reports
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one scored the same or higher as 7 of them.
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 310,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them