↓ Skip to main content

Mesenchymal Stem Cell Treatment of Intervertebral Disc Lesion Prevents Fatty Infiltration and Fibrosis of the Multifidus Muscle, but not Cytokine and Muscle Fiber Changes

Overview of attention for article published in Spine, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
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.
Title
Mesenchymal Stem Cell Treatment of Intervertebral Disc Lesion Prevents Fatty Infiltration and Fibrosis of the Multifidus Muscle, but not Cytokine and Muscle Fiber Changes
Published in
Spine, August 2016
DOI 10.1097/brs.0000000000001669
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory James, Linda Blomster, Leanne Hall, Annina B. Schmid, Cindy C. Shu, Christopher B. Little, James Melrose, Paul W. Hodges

Abstract

Longitudinal case control animal model. To investigate effects of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) treatment on multifidus muscle remodeling after intervertebral disc (IVD) lesion. Lesion and degeneration of IVDs causes structural remodeling of the multifidus muscle. Pro-inflammatory cytokines are thought to contribute. MSC-treatment restores IVD health after lesion but its effects on surrounding tissues remains unknown. Using an animal model of IVD degeneration, we assessed the effects of MSC-treatment of IVDs on the structural remodeling and cytokine expression within the multifidus muscle. An anterolateral lesion was performed on the L1-2, L3-4 and L5-6 IVDs in sheep. At either 4 (early treatment) or 12 (late treatment) weeks after IVD lesion, MSCs were injected into the lesioned IVD. Multifidus muscle was harvested from L2 (gene expression analysis) and L4 (histological analysis) at 3 or 6 months after IVD lesion and naïve controls for histological analysis of muscle, adipose and connective tissue cross sectional areas (CSA), and immunohistochemistry to study muscle fiber types. Real-time polymerase chain reactions quantified expression of TNF, IL-1β and TGF-β1. MSC-treatment of IVD lesion prevented the increased adipose and connective tissue CSA expected after IVD lesion. MSC-treatment did not prevent slow-to-fast muscle fiber type transformation. Gene expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines within the muscle was altered by the MSC-treatment of IVD. Increased IL-1β expression was prevented in the early treatment group and TNF and TGF-β1 expression was upregulated at 6 months. Results show that although MSC-treatment prevents fatty infiltration and fibrosis of the multifidus muscle after IVD lesion, it cannot prevent a muscle inflammatory response and muscle fiber transformation. These findings highlight the potential role of MSC therapy after IVD injury, but reveals that other interventions may also be necessary to optimize recovery of muscle. 4.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 21%
Engineering 5 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 13 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,977,796
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Spine
#4,919
of 8,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,650
of 366,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Spine
#51
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 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 8,187 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 366,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 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 50% of its contemporaries.