| Title |
Biomimetic Microstructure Morphology in Electrospun Fiber Mats is Critical for Maintaining Healthy Cardiomyocyte Phenotype
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12195-015-0412-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rutwik Rath, Jung Bok Lee, Truc-Linh Tran, Sean F. Lenihan, Cristi L. Galindo, Yan Ru Su, Tarek Absi, Leon M. Bellan, Douglas B. Sawyer, Hak-Joon Sung |
| Abstract |
Despite recent advances in biomimetic substrates, there is still only limited understanding of how the extracellular matrix (ECM) functions in the maintenance of cardiomyocyte (CM) phenotype. In this study, we designed electrospun substrates inspired by morphologic features of non-failing and failing human heart ECM, and examined how these substrates regulate phenotypes of adult and neonatal rat ventricular CMs (ARVM and NRVM, respectively). We found that poly(ε-caprolactone) fiber substrates designed to mimic the organized ECM of a non-failing human heart maintained healthy CM phenotype (evidenced by cell morphology, organized actin/myomesin bands and expression of β-MYH7 and SCN5A.1 and SCN5A.2) compared to both failing heart ECM-mimetic substrates and tissue culture plates. Moreover, culture of ARVMs and NRVMs on aligned substrates showed differences in m- and z-line alignment; with ARVMs aligning parallel to the ECM fibers and the NRVMs aligning perpendicular to the fibers. The results provide new insight into cardiac tissue engineering by illustrating the importance models that mimic the cardiac ECM microenvironment in vitro. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 32% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 8 | 36% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
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 16 September 2015.
All research outputs
#13,956,297
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering
#231
of 458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,408
of 267,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 458 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 267,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.