| Title |
Isolation of human mesenchymal stem cells from amnion, chorion, placental decidua and umbilical cord: comparison of four enzymatic protocols
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biotechnology Techniques, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10529-018-2546-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. B. Araújo, J. M. Furlan, G. D. Salton, T. Schmalfuss, L. M. Röhsig, L. M. R. Silla, E. P. Passos, A. H. Paz |
| Abstract |
To compare four enzymatic protocols for mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) isolation from amniotic (A-MSC) and chorionic (C-MSC) membranes, umbilical cord (UC-MSC) and placental decidua (D-MSC) in order to define a robust, practical and low-cost protocol for each tissue. A-MSCs and UC-MSCs could be isolated from all samples using trypsin/collagenase-based protocols; C-MSCs could be isolated from all samples with collagenase- and trypsin/collagenase-based protocols; D-MSCs were isolated from all samples exclusively with a collagenase-based protocol. The trypsin-only protocol was least efficient; the collagenase-only protocol was best for C-MSCs and D-MSCs; the combination of trypsin and collagenase was best for UC-MSCs and none of tested protocols was adequate for A-MSCs isolation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 23% |
| Researcher | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Chemical Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 July 2022.
All research outputs
#7,782,070
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology Techniques
#771
of 2,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,829
of 342,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology Techniques
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,762 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 342,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 71% of its contemporaries.