↓ Skip to main content

Stem Cells: Biology and Engineering

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 118: Contrasting Views on the Role of Mesenchymal Stromal/Stem Cells in Tumour Growth: A Systematic Review of Experimental Design
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Contrasting Views on the Role of Mesenchymal Stromal/Stem Cells in Tumour Growth: A Systematic Review of Experimental Design
Chapter number 118
Book title
Stem Cells: Biology and Engineering
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/5584_2017_118
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-977481-7, 978-3-31-977482-4
Authors

Ahmed Kolade Oloyo, Melvin Anyasi Ambele, Michael Sean Pepper

Abstract

The effect of mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) on tumour growth remains controversial. Experimental evidence supports both an inhibitory and a stimulatory effect. We have assessed factors responsible for the contrasting effects of MSCs on tumour growth by doing a meta-analysis of existing literature between 2000 and May 2017. We assessed 183 original research articles comprising 338 experiments. We considered (a) in vivo and in vitro experiments, (b) whether in vivo studies were syngeneic or xenogeneic, and (c) if animals were immune competent or deficient. Furthermore, the sources and types of cancer cells and MSCs were considered together with modes of cancer induction and MSC administration. 56% of all 338 experiments reported that MSCs promote tumour growth. 78% and 79% of all experiments sourced human MSCs and cancer cells, respectively. MSCs were used in their naïve and engineered form in 86% and 14% of experiments, respectively, the latter to produce factors that could alter either their activity or that of the tumour. 53% of all experiments were conducted in vitro with 60% exposing cancer cells to MSCs via coculture. Of all in vivo experiments, 79% were xenogeneic and 63% were conducted in immune-competent animals. Tumour growth was inhibited in 80% of experiments that used umbilical cord-derived MSCs, whereas tumour growth was promoted in 64% and 57% of experiments that used bone marrow- and adipose tissue-derived MSCs, respectively. This contrasting effect of MSCs on tumour growth observed under different experimental conditions may reflect differences in experimental design. This analysis calls for careful consideration of experimental design given the large number of MSC clinical trials currently underway.

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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 27%
Researcher 5 23%
Lecturer 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,576,855
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#3,324
of 4,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,453
of 421,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#333
of 490 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 421,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 490 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.