↓ Skip to main content

The perivascular origin of pathological fibroblasts

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Investigation, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
122 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
The perivascular origin of pathological fibroblasts
Published in
Journal of Clinical Investigation, January 2018
DOI 10.1172/jci93558
Pubmed ID
Authors

Selene E. Di Carlo, Lucie Peduto

Abstract

The ability to repair tissues is essential for the survival of organisms. In chronic settings, the failure of the repair process to terminate results in overproduction of collagen, a pathology known as fibrosis, which compromises organ recovery and impairs function. The origin of the collagen-overproducing cell has been debated for years. Here we review recent insights gained from the use of lineage tracing approaches in several organs. The resulting evidence points toward specific subsets of tissue-resident mesenchymal cells, mainly localized in a perivascular position, as the major source for collagen-producing cells after injury. We discuss these findings in view of the functional heterogeneity of mesenchymal cells of the perivascular niche, which have essential vascular, immune, and regenerative functions that need to be preserved for efficient repair.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 20%
Student > Master 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 4%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 41 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 42 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 6%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 47 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 January 2018.
All research outputs
#5,612,714
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Investigation
#8,125
of 16,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,113
of 444,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Investigation
#57
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 444,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.