↓ Skip to main content

Engineering kidneys from simple cell suspensions: an exercise in self-organization

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Nephrology, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Engineering kidneys from simple cell suspensions: an exercise in self-organization
Published in
Pediatric Nephrology, August 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00467-013-2579-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie A. Davies, C-Hong Chang

Abstract

Increasing numbers of people approaching and living with end-stage renal disease and failure of the supply of transplantable kidneys to keep pace has created an urgent need for alternative sources of new organs. One possibility is tissue engineering of new organs from stem cells. Adult kidneys are arguably too large and anatomically complex for direct construction, but engineering immature kidneys, transplanting them, and allowing them to mature within the host may be more feasible. In this review, we describe a technique that begins with a suspension of renogenic stem cells and promotes these cells' self-organization into organ rudiments very similar to foetal kidneys, with a collecting duct tree, nephrons, corticomedullary zonation and extended loops of Henle. The engineered rudiments vascularize when transplanted to appropriate vessel-rich sites in bird eggs or adult animals, and show preliminary evidence for physiological function. We hope that this approach might one day be the basis of a clinically useful technique for renal replacement therapy.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Slovenia 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 49 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Master 7 13%
Professor 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 6 11%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 October 2014.
All research outputs
#3,651,747
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Nephrology
#497
of 3,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,289
of 199,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Nephrology
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 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 3,534 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. 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 199,450 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.