↓ Skip to main content

Epigenetic differences between naïve and primed pluripotent stem cells

Overview of attention for article published in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, November 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 X users
patent
5 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
315 Mendeley
Title
Epigenetic differences between naïve and primed pluripotent stem cells
Published in
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00018-017-2703-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saori Takahashi, Shin Kobayashi, Ichiro Hiratani

Abstract

It has been 8 years since the concept of naïve and primed pluripotent stem cell states was first proposed. Both are states of pluripotency, but exhibit slightly different properties. The naïve state represents the cellular state of the preimplantation mouse blastocyst inner cell mass, while the primed state is representative of the post-implantation epiblast cells. These two cell types exhibit clearly distinct developmental potential, as evidenced by the fact that naïve cells are able to contribute to blastocyst chimeras, while primed cells cannot. However, the epigenetic differences that underlie the distinct developmental potential of these cell types remain unclear, which is rather surprising given the large amount of active investigation over the years. Elucidating such epigenetic differences should lead to a better understanding of the fundamental properties of these states of pluripotency and the means by which the naïve-to-primed transition occurs, which may provide insights into the essence of stem cell commitment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 315 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 315 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 52 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 16%
Researcher 39 12%
Student > Master 35 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 3%
Other 30 10%
Unknown 97 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 126 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 6%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Unspecified 4 1%
Other 23 7%
Unknown 96 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,475,859
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#139
of 4,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,724
of 327,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#4
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 327,758 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.