↓ Skip to main content

3D Carbon Scaffolds for Neural Stem Cell Culture and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Overview of attention for article published in Advanced Healthcare Materials, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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.
Title
3D Carbon Scaffolds for Neural Stem Cell Culture and Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published in
Advanced Healthcare Materials, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/adhm.201700915
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erwin Fuhrer, Anne Bäcker, Stephanie Kraft, Friederike J. Gruhl, Matthias Kirsch, Neil MacKinnon, Jan G. Korvink, Swati Sharma

Abstract

3D glassy carbon structures with percolated macropores are obtained by pyrolysis of chemically synthesized cryogels featuring tunable porosity. These batch-fabricated structures are used as scaffolds for culturing neural stem cells (NSCs) and are characterized by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). With the aid of MRI, the successful cultivation of NSCs on a glassy carbon surface and the precise 3D locations of these cell clusters within the opaque scaffold are demonstrated. MRI also yields pore morphology and porosity analyses, pre- and post-pyrolysis. This integrated approach yields a complete 3D dataset of the NSC network, which enables the visual inspection of the morphological details of individual cell clusters without disturbing them or destroying the scaffold. Reported experimental methodology is expected to have an impact on studies designed to understand the mechanism of neurodegenerative disease (ND) development, and can serve as a protocol for the culture of various other types of cells that display compatibility with glassy carbon surfaces.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 27%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 5 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Physics and Astronomy 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Materials Science 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 10 38%
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 06 January 2018.
All research outputs
#19,917,373
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Advanced Healthcare Materials
#2,147
of 2,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#339,471
of 449,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advanced Healthcare Materials
#81
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 449,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.