↓ Skip to main content

Erase and Rewind: Epigenetic Conversion of Cell Fate

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Erase and Rewind: Epigenetic Conversion of Cell Fate
Published in
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12015-015-9637-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgia Pennarossa, Alessandro Zenobi, Cecilia E. Gandolfi, Elena F. M. Manzoni, Fulvio Gandolfi, Tiziana A. L. Brevini

Abstract

The potential of cell therapy in regenerative medicine has greatly expanded thanks to the availability of sources of pluripotent cells. In particular, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) have dominated the scenario in the last years for their ability to proliferate and differentiate into specific cell types. Nevertheless, the concerns inherent to the cell reprogramming process, limit iPS use in therapy and pose questions on the long-term behavior of these cells. In particular, despite the development of virus-free methods for their obtainment, a major and persisting drawback, is related to the acquisition of a stable pluripotent state, that is un-physiological and may lead to cell instability. The increased understanding of epigenetic mechanisms has paved the way to the use of "small molecules" and "epigenetic modifiers" that allow the fine tuning of cell genotype and phenotype. In particular, it was demonstrated that an adult mature cell could be directly converted into a different cell type with the use of these chemicals, obtaining a new patient-specific cell, suitable for cell therapy. This approach is simple and direct and may represent a very promising tool for the regenerative medicine of several and diverse degenerative diseases.

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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 34%
Student > Master 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 10 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 September 2016.
All research outputs
#8,262,107
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#377
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,251
of 392,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th 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 62% 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 392,723 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 68% 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.