| Title |
Improved Approach for Chondrogenic Differentiation of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-014-9581-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hossein Nejadnik, Sebastian Diecke, Olga D. Lenkov, Fanny Chapelin, Jessica Donig, Xinming Tong, Nikita Derugin, Ray C. F. Chan, Amitabh Gaur, Fan Yang, Joseph C. Wu, Heike E. Daldrup-Link |
| Abstract |
Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) have demonstrated great potential for hyaline cartilage regeneration. However, current approaches for chondrogenic differentiation of hiPSCs are complicated and inefficient primarily due to intermediate embryoid body formation, which is required to generate endodermal, ectodermal, and mesodermal cell lineages. We report a new, straightforward and highly efficient approach for chondrogenic differentiation of hiPSCs, which avoids embryoid body formation. We differentiated hiPSCs directly into mesenchymal stem /stromal cells (MSC) and chondrocytes. hiPSC-MSC-derived chondrocytes showed significantly increased Col2A1, GAG, and SOX9 gene expression compared to hiPSC-MSCs. Following transplantation of hiPSC-MSC and hiPSC-MSC-derived chondrocytes into osteochondral defects of arthritic joints of athymic rats, magnetic resonance imaging studies showed gradual engraftment, and histological correlations demonstrated hyaline cartilage matrix production. Results present an efficient and clinically translatable approach for cartilage tissue regeneration via patient-derived hiPSCs, which could improve cartilage regeneration outcomes in arthritic joints. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 123 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 16% |
| Researcher | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 24 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 18% |
| Engineering | 21 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 28 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 06 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,911,293
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#26
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,702
of 360,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 360,432 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 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