↓ Skip to main content

Immunomodulatory plasticity of mesenchymal stem cells: a potential key to successful solid organ transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, February 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 (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Immunomodulatory plasticity of mesenchymal stem cells: a potential key to successful solid organ transplantation
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12967-018-1403-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Urvashi Kaundal, Upma Bagai, Aruna Rakha

Abstract

Organ transplantation remains to be a treatment of choice for patients suffering from irreversible organ failure. Immunosuppressive (IS) drugs employed to maintain the allograft have shown excellent short-term graft survival, but, their long-term use could contribute to immunological and non-immunological risk factors, resulting in graft dysfunctionalities. Upcoming IS regimes have highlighted the use of cell-based therapies, which can eliminate the risk of drug-borne toxicities while maintaining efficacy of the treatment. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been considered as an invaluable cell type, owing to their unique immunomodulatory properties, which makes them desirable for application in transplant settings, where hyper-activation of the immune system is evident. The immunoregulatory potential of MSCs holds true for preclinical studies while achieving it in clinical studies continues to be a challenge. Understanding the biological factors responsible for subdued responses of MSCs in vivo would allow uninhibited use of this therapy for countless conditions. In this review, we summarize the variations in the preclinical and clinical studies utilizing MSCs, discuss the factors which might be responsible for variability in outcome and propose the advancements likely to occur in future for using this as a "boutique/personalised therapy" for patient care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Researcher 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 22 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 24 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 28 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,495,954
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#714
of 4,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,767
of 474,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#21
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 474,288 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 74% of its contemporaries.