| Title |
Genome Editing and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Technologies for Personalized Study of Cardiovascular Diseases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Cardiology Reports, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11886-018-0984-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Young Wook Chun, Matthew D. Durbin, Charles C. Hong |
| Abstract |
The goal of this review is to highlight the potential of induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-based modeling as a tool for studying human cardiovascular diseases. We present some of the current cardiovascular disease models utilizing genome editing and patient-derived iPSCs. The incorporation of genome-editing and iPSC technologies provides an innovative research platform, providing novel insight into human cardiovascular disease at molecular, cellular, and functional level. In addition, genome editing in diseased iPSC lines holds potential for personalized regenerative therapies. The study of human cardiovascular disease has been revolutionized by cellular reprogramming and genome editing discoveries. These exceptional technologies provide an opportunity to generate human cell cardiovascular disease models and enable therapeutic strategy development in a dish. We anticipate these technologies to improve our understanding of cardiovascular disease pathophysiology leading to optimal treatment for heart diseases in the future. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 25% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,980,451
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#599
of 1,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,558
of 327,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 327,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 51% of its contemporaries.