| Title |
Engineering Cell Fate for Tissue Regeneration by In Vivo Transdifferentiation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-015-9624-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
I. de Lázaro, K. Kostarelos |
| Abstract |
Changes in cell identity occur in adult mammalian organisms but are rare and often linked to disease. Research in the last few decades has thrown light on how to manipulate cell fate, but the conversion of a particular cell type into another within a living organism (also termed in vivo transdifferentiation) has only been recently achieved in a limited number of tissues. Although the therapeutic promise of this strategy for tissue regeneration and repair is exciting, important efficacy and safety concerns will need to be addressed before it becomes a reality in the clinical practice. Here, we review the most relevant in vivo transdifferentiation studies in adult mammalian animal models, offering a critical assessment of this potentially powerful strategy for regenerative medicine. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 32% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 3% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 16% |
| Engineering | 3 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 6% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 October 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#681
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,083
of 285,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 285,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.