↓ Skip to main content

Optimisation of a potency assay for the assessment of immunomodulative potential of clinical grade multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells

Overview of attention for article published in Methods in Cell Science, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Optimisation of a potency assay for the assessment of immunomodulative potential of clinical grade multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells
Published in
Methods in Cell Science, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10616-017-0186-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irene Oliver-Vila, Carmen Ramírez-Moncayo, Marta Grau-Vorster, Sílvia Marín-Gallén, Marta Caminal, Joaquim Vives

Abstract

Clinical use of multipotent Mesenchymal Stromal Cell (MSC)-based medicinal products requires their production in compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices, thus ensuring that the final drug product meets specifications consistently from batch to batch in terms of cell viability, identity, purity and potency. Potency relates to the efficacy of the medicine in its target clinical indication, so adequate release tests need to be defined and validated as quality controls. Herein we report the design and optimisation of parameters affecting the performance of an in vitro cell-based assay for assessing immunomodulatory potential of clinical grade MSC for human use, based on their capacity to inhibit proliferation of T lymphocytes under strong polyclonal stimuli. The resulting method was demonstrated to be reproducible and relatively simple to execute. Two case studies using clinical grade MSC are presented as examples to illustrate the applicability of the methodology described in this work.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 26%
Student > Master 15 22%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 18 26%
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 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Methods in Cell Science
#857
of 1,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#344,913
of 451,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in Cell Science
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 1,026 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 451,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.