| Title |
Pluripotent Stem Cells in Adult Tissues: Struggling To Be Acknowledged Over Two Decades
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-017-9756-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Deepa Bhartiya |
| Abstract |
Stem cells have fascinated scientists for a long time and huge research efforts have been put into them as they have the potential to regenerate diseased organs. Besides embryonic stem cells (ES) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), it has been postulated that pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) may also exist in various adult tissues. They are thought to be more primitive than the adult stem cells (ASCs), serve as a backup pool to give rise to ASCs and thus play a crucial role in maintaining life-long homeostasis. These PSCs could also be the embryonic stem cells in adult tissues that were proposed to initiate cancers according to the Embryonic Rest Hypothesis put forth in the nineteenth century. However, the very presence of PSCs in adult tissues is mired with controversies. This article is a sincere attempt to review research carried out by various investigators over the last two decades and various attempts to demonstrate their presence in adult tissues. Such adult PSCs could be the ideal stem cell candidates to bring about endogenous regeneration compared to ES/iPS cells grown in Petri dish and also score better over ASCs which in fact are tissue committed progenitors with limited regenerative potential that differentiate from the PSCs. PSCs in adult tissues have remained elusive until now as they possibly get unknowingly discarded due to their small size and inability to pellet at 1000-1200 rpm (250 g). They will likely prove to be a game changer in the field of stem cells biology, for regenerative medicine and for our understanding of cancer initiation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 26 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,263,639
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#151
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,645
of 309,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 309,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.