| Title |
A New Chapter for Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Decellularized Extracellular Matrices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-017-9757-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yagiz Anasiz, Riza Koksal Ozgul, Duygu Uckan-Cetinkaya |
| Abstract |
From orthopedic to neurological disorders, stem cells are used as platforms to understand disease mechanisms and considered as novel and promising treatment options, especially when the valid therapeutic approaches are unavailable or ineffective. There are different stem cell types in the literature, however the spindle-shaped, colony forming and multilineage-differentiating cells, also known as mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) are very popular, as MSC can be isolated from different tissues with minimal ethical concerns and without tumor formations, which make them easily accessible and widely used in vitro and in vivo studies. In the literature, MSC have been shown to have therapeutic effects and orchestrate the healing process via their mobilization, migration, differentiation capacities, immunomodulation properties and/or secretion of bioactive factors. Nowadays, MSC derived extracellular matrices (ECM), which are part of the secreted/produced bioactive molecules from MSC; draw attention of researchers due to their key roles in cell biology. Several groups have isolated ECM from in vitro cultured MSC using different methods of decellularization techniques for tissue-engineering approaches. According to current knowledge, decellularized ECM (dECM) influence growth, adhesion, differentiation, migration, apoptosis, proliferation, and phenotype of cells, covering almost all cellular events. In this comprehensive review we focused on MSC and the isolation methods and effects of MSC derived dECM (MSC-dECM). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
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 | 16 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 10% |
| Materials Science | 7 | 10% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 25% |
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 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,918,049
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#547
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,316
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#10
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 327,503 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 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.