↓ Skip to main content

Why the impact of mechanical stimuli on stem cells remains a challenge

Overview of attention for article published in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Why the impact of mechanical stimuli on stem cells remains a challenge
Published in
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00018-018-2830-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roman Goetzke, Antonio Sechi, Laura De Laporte, Sabine Neuss, Wolfgang Wagner

Abstract

Mechanical stimulation affects growth and differentiation of stem cells. This may be used to guide lineage-specific cell fate decisions and therefore opens fascinating opportunities for stem cell biology and regenerative medicine. Several studies demonstrated functional and molecular effects of mechanical stimulation but on first sight these results often appear to be inconsistent. Comparison of such studies is hampered by a multitude of relevant parameters that act in concert. There are notorious differences between species, cell types, and culture conditions. Furthermore, the utilized culture substrates have complex features, such as surface chemistry, elasticity, and topography. Cell culture substrates can vary from simple, flat materials to complex 3D scaffolds. Last but not least, mechanical forces can be applied with different frequency, amplitude, and strength. It is therefore a prerequisite to take all these parameters into consideration when ascribing their specific functional relevance-and to only modulate one parameter at the time if the relevance of this parameter is addressed. Such research questions can only be investigated by interdisciplinary cooperation. In this review, we focus particularly on mesenchymal stem cells and pluripotent stem cells to discuss relevant parameters that contribute to the kaleidoscope of mechanical stimulation of stem cells.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 23%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Researcher 9 7%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 24 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 23 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Materials Science 6 5%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 34 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#16,031,680
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#3,071
of 4,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,567
of 328,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#25
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 328,161 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.