| Title |
Cardiac Cell Therapy: Boosting Mesenchymal Stem Cells Effects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-012-9353-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Samper, A. Diez-Juan, J. A. Montero, P. Sepúlveda |
| Abstract |
Acute myocardial infarction is a major problem of world public health and available treatments have limited efficacy. Cardiac cell therapy is a new therapeutic strategy focused on regeneration and repair of the injured cardiac muscle. Among different cell types used, mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) have been widely tested in preclinical studies and several clinical trials have evaluated their clinical efficacy in myocardial infarction. However, the beneficial effects of MSC in humans are limited due to poor engraftment and survival of these cells, therefore ways to overcome these obstacles should improve efficacy. Different strategies have been used, such as genetically modifying MSC, or preconditioning the cells with factors that potentiate their survival and therapeutic mechanisms. In this review we compile the most relevant approaches used to improve MSC therapeutic capacity and to understand the molecular mechanisms involved in MSC mediated cardiac repair. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 83% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 63 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 21% |
| Researcher | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 3 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 16% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 6% |
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 06 March 2012.
All research outputs
#7,849,331
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#355
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,507
of 167,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 167,760 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.