| Title |
MicroRNAs: Important Regulators of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Generation and Differentiation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-017-9785-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhao-Lin Zeng, Xiao-long Lin, Li-Lan Tan, Ya-Mi Liu, Kai Qu, Zuo Wang |
| Abstract |
Induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells can differentiate into nearly all types of cells. In contrast to embryonic stem cells, iPS cells are not subject to immune rejection because they are derived from a patient's own cells without ethical concerns. These cells can be used in regenerative medical techniques, stem cell therapy, disease modelling and drug discovery investigations. However, this application faces many challenges, such as low efficiency, slow generation time, partially reprogrammed colonies and tumourigenicity. Numerous techniques have been formulated in the past decade to improve reprogramming efficiency and safety, including the use of different transcription factors, small molecule compounds and non-coding RNAs. Recently, microRNAs (miRNAs) were found to promote the generation and differentiation of iPS cells. The miRNAs can more effectively and safely generate iPS cells than transcription factors. This process ultimately leads to the development of iPSC-based therapeutics for future clinical applications. In this comprehensive review, we summarise advances in research and the application of iPS cells, as well as recent progress in the use of miRNAs for iPS cell generation and differentiation. We examine possible clinical applications, especially in cardiology. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 24 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,562,512
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#104
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,787
of 335,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#2
of 16 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 85th 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 89% 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 335,891 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.