| Title |
Gene Network Analysis of Interstitial Macrophages After Treatment with Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Secretome (iPSC-cm) in the Bleomycin Injured Rat Lung
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-017-9790-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luca Tamò, Cedric Simillion, Youssef Hibaoui, Anis Feki, Mathias Gugger, Antje Prasse, Benedikt Jäger, Torsten Goldmann, Thomas Geiser, Amiq Gazdhar |
| Abstract |
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a complex disease involving various cell types. Macrophages are essential in maintenance of physiological homeostasis, wound repair and fibrosis in the lung. Macrophages play a crucial role in repair and remodeling by altering their phenotype and secretory pattern in response to injury. The secretome of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC-cm) attenuates injury and fibrosis in bleomycin injured rat lungs. In the current study, we evaluate the effect of iPSC-cm on gene expression and phenotype of interstitial macrophage in bleomycin injured rat lungs in vivo. iPSC-cm was intratracheally instilled 7 days after bleomycin induced lung injury and assessed 7 days later and single cell isolation was performed. Macrophages were FACS sorted and microarray analysis was performed. We characterized changes in the rat lung interstitial macrophages using transcriptional profiling. iPSC-cm reduced the total collagen content of the lung and reduced different macrophage populations. Gene set enrichment analysis revealed involvement of three essential pathways (a) immune modulation, (b) branching morphogenesis and (c) canonical Wnt signaling. This study demonstrates that iPSC-cm reduces fibrosis in bleomycin injured rat lung by partially altering the macrophages and regulating their gene expression. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 25% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,605,790
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#534
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,050
of 446,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 446,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.