| Title |
Comparison of human mesenchymal stem cells isolated by explant culture method from entire umbilical cord and Wharton’s jelly matrix
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cell and Tissue Banking, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10561-014-9425-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fatemeh Hendijani, Hojjat Sadeghi-Aliabadi, Shaghayegh Haghjooy Javanmard |
| Abstract |
Adult stem cells are of particular importance for applications in regenerative medicine. Umbilical cord was established recently as an alternative source of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) instead of bone marrow (BM) and is superior to BM and other adult tissues according to several MSC properties. Additionally, for the purpose of cell therapy in clinical scale, steps of cell isolation, expansion and culture required to be precisely adjusted in order to obtain the most cost-effective, least time-consuming, and least labor-intensive method. Therefore, in this study, we are going to compare two simple and cost-effective explant culture methods for isolation of MSCs from human umbilical cord. One of the methods isolates cells from entire cord and the other from Wharton's jelly matrix. Isolated cells then cultured in simple medium without addition of any growth factor. MSCs obtained via both methods display proper and similar characteristics according to morphology, population doubling time, post-thaw survival, surface antigenicity and differentiation into adipocytes, osteocytes, and chondrocytes. MSCs can easily be obtained from the entire cord and Wharton's jelly, and it seems that both tissues are appropriate sources of stem cells for potential use in regenerative medicine. However, from technical largescale preview, MSC isolation from entire cord piece is less labor-intensive and time-consuming than from Wharton's jelly part of the cord. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 14% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 1% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 21 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 December 2020.
All research outputs
#6,937,459
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Cell and Tissue Banking
#60
of 287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,381
of 223,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell and Tissue Banking
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 287 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 223,273 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.