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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Syndecan-2–positive, Bone Marrow–derived Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Attenuate Bacterial-induced Acute Lung Injury and Enhance Resolution of Ventilator-induced Lung Injury in Rats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anesthesiology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1097/aln.0000000000002327 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Masterson, James Devaney, Shahd Horie, Lisa O’Flynn, Laura Deedigan, Steve Elliman, Frank Barry, Timothy O’Brien, Daniel O’Toole, John G. Laffey |
| Abstract |
WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: Human mesenchymal stromal cells demonstrate promise for acute respiratory distress syndrome, but current studies use highly heterogenous cell populations. We hypothesized that a syndecan 2 (CD362)-expressing human mesenchymal stromal cell subpopulation would attenuate Escherichia coli-induced lung injury and enhance resolution after ventilator-induced lung injury. In vitro studies determined whether CD362 human mesenchymal stromal cells could modulate pulmonary epithelial inflammation, wound healing, and macrophage phagocytosis. Two in vivo rodent studies determined whether CD362 human mesenchymal stromal cells attenuated Escherichia coli-induced lung injury (n = 10/group) and enhanced resolution of ventilation-induced injury (n = 10/group). CD362 human mesenchymal stromal cells attenuated cytokine-induced epithelial nuclear factor kappa B activation, increased epithelial wound closure, and increased macrophage phagocytosis in vitro. CD362 human mesenchymal stromal cells attenuated Escherichia coli-induced injury in rodents, improving arterial oxygenation (mean ± SD, 83 ± 9 vs. 60 ± 8 mmHg, P < 0.05), improving lung compliance (mean ± SD: 0.66 ± 0.08 vs. 0.53 ± 0.09 ml · cm H2O, P < 0.05), reducing bacterial load (median [interquartile range], 1,895 [100-3,300] vs. 8,195 [4,260-8,690] colony-forming units, P < 0.05), and decreasing structural injury compared with vehicle. CD362 human mesenchymal stromal cells were more effective than CD362 human mesenchymal stromal cells and comparable to heterogenous human mesenchymal stromal cells. CD362 human mesenchymal stromal cells enhanced resolution after ventilator-induced lung injury in rodents, restoring arterial oxygenation (mean ± SD: 113 ± 11 vs. 89 ± 11 mmHg, P < 0.05) and lung static compliance (mean ± SD: 0.74 ± 0.07 vs. 0.45 ± 0.07 ml · cm H2O, P < 0.05), resolving lung inflammation, and restoring histologic structure compared with vehicle. CD362 human mesenchymal stromal cells efficacy was at least comparable to heterogenous human mesenchymal stromal cells. A CD362 human mesenchymal stromal cell population decreased Escherichia coli-induced pneumonia severity and enhanced recovery after ventilator-induced lung injury. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 1 | 20% |
| India | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
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 > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 10% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,920,631
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesiology
#4,786
of 6,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,197
of 345,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesiology
#59
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 345,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.