↓ Skip to main content

Autologous Cell Seeding in Tracheal Tissue Engineering

Overview of attention for article published in Current Stem Cell Reports, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Autologous Cell Seeding in Tracheal Tissue Engineering
Published in
Current Stem Cell Reports, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40778-017-0108-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth F. Maughan, Robert E. Hynds, Toby J. Proctor, Sam M. Janes, Martin Elliott, Martin A. Birchall, Mark W. Lowdell, Paolo De Coppi

Abstract

There is no consensus on the best technology to be employed for tracheal replacement. One particularly promising approach is based upon tissue engineering and involves applying autologous cells to transplantable scaffolds. Here, we present the reported pre-clinical and clinical data exploring the various options for achieving such seeding. Various cell combinations, delivery strategies, and outcome measures are described. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are the most widely employed cell type in tracheal bioengineering. Airway epithelial cell luminal seeding is also widely employed, alone or in combination with other cell types. Combinations have thus far shown the greatest promise. Chondrocytes may improve mechanical outcomes in pre-clinical models, but have not been clinically tested. Rapid or pre-vascularization of scaffolds is an important consideration. Overall, there are few published objective measures of post-seeding cell viability, survival, or overall efficacy. There is no clear consensus on the optimal cell-scaffold combination and mechanisms for seeding. Systematic in vivo work is required to assess differences between tracheal grafts seeded with combinations of clinically deliverable cell types using objective outcome measures, including those for functionality and host immune response.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Lecturer 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 25%
Engineering 13 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Materials Science 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 21 31%
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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,937,471
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Current Stem Cell Reports
#19
of 19 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,208
of 328,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Stem Cell Reports
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 328,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them