Nerve conduits pre-filled with hydrogels are frequently explored in an attempt to promote nerve regeneration. This study examines the interplay between the porosity of the conduit wall and the level of bioactivity of the hydrogel used to fill the conduit. Nerve regeneration in porous (P) or non-porous (NP) conduits that were filled with either collagen-only or collagen enhanced with a covalently attached neurite-promoting peptide mimic of the glycan Human Natural Killer Cell Antigen-1 (m-HNK) were compared in a 5 mm critical size defect in the mouse femoral nerve repair model. While collagen is a cell-friendly matrix that does not differentiate between neural and non-neural cells, the m-HNK-enhanced collagen specifically promotes axon growth and appropriate motor neuron targeting. In this study, animals treated with non-porous (NP) conduits filled with collagen grafted with m-HNK (CollagenHNK) had the best functional recovery, commensurate with a substantial improvement in all tested histomorphometric parameters (number of axons, degree of raw tissue area, percentage of myelinated nerve fibers, cross-sectional area of myelinated nerve fibers) relative to all other conduit conditions. Our data indicate that under some conditions, the use of generally cell friendly fillers such as collagen, may limit nerve regeneration. This finding is significant, considering the frequent use of collagen based hydrogels as fillers of nerve conduits.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 12 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,719,245
of 34,763,505 outputs
Outputs from Tissue Engineering: Part A
#106
of 2,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,710
of 337,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tissue Engineering: Part A
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,763,505 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 2,202 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 337,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
