↓ Skip to main content

Pericardial application as a new route for implanting stem‐cell cardiospheres to treat myocardial infarction

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Physiology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
36 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.
Article details
Title
Pericardial application as a new route for implanting stem‐cell cardiospheres to treat myocardial infarction
Published in
Journal of Physiology, May 2018
DOI 10.1113/jp275548
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Cardiospheres (CSps) are a promising new form of cardiac stem cells with advantage over other stem cells for myocardial regeneration, but direct implantation of CSps by conventional routes has been limited due to potential embolism. We have implanted CSps into the pericardial cavity and systematically demonstrated its efficacy regarding myocardial infarction. Stem cell potency and cell viability can be optimized in vitro prior to implantation by pre-conditioning CSps with pericardial fluid and hydrogel packing. Transplantation of optimized CSps into the pericardial cavity improved cardiac function and alleviated myocardial fibrosis, increased myocardial cell survival and promoted angiogenesis. Mechanistically, CSps are able to directly differentiate into cardiomyocytes in vivo and promote regeneration of myocardial cells and blood vessels through a paracrine effect with released growth factors as potential paracrine mediators. These findings establish a new strategy for therapeutic myocardial regeneration to treat myocardial infarction. Cardiospheres (CSps) are a new form of cardiac stem cells with an advantage over other stem cells for myocardial regeneration. However, direct implantation of CSps by conventional routes to treat myocardial infarction has been limited due to potential embolism. We have implanted CSps into the pericardial cavity and systematically assessed its efficacy on myocardial infarction. Preconditioning with pericardial fluid enhanced the activity of CSps and matrix hydrogel prolonged their viability. This shows that pretransplant optimization of stem cell potency and maintenance of cell viability can be achieved with CSps. Transplantation of optimized CSps into the pericardial cavity improved cardiac function and alleviated myocardial fibrosis in the non-infarcted area, and increased myocardial cell survival and promoted angiogenesis in the infarcted area. Mechanistically, CSps were able to directly differentiate into cardiomyocytes in vivo and promoted regeneration of myocardial cells and blood vessels in the infarcted area through a paracrine effect with released growth factors in pericardial cavity serving as possible paracrine mediators. This is the first demonstration of direct pericardial administration of pre-optimized CSps, and its effectiveness on myocardial infarction by functional and morphological outcomes with distinct mechanisms. These findings establish a new strategy for therapeutic myocardial regeneration to treat myocardial infarction.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 13 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 17%
Engineering 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,534,964
of 34,575,175 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Physiology
#1,004
of 12,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,941
of 373,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Physiology
#28
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,575,175 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,302 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 373,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.