↓ Skip to main content

Magnetic targeting as a strategy to enhance therapeutic effects of mesenchymal stromal cells

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Research & Therapy, March 2017
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Magnetic targeting as a strategy to enhance therapeutic effects of mesenchymal stromal cells
Published in
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13287-017-0523-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luisa H. A. Silva, Fernanda F. Cruz, Marcelo M. Morales, Daniel J. Weiss, Patricia R. M. Rocco

Abstract

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have been extensively investigated in the field of regenerative medicine. It is known that the success of MSC-based therapies depends primarily on effective cell delivery to the target site where they will secrete vesicles and soluble factors with immunomodulatory and potentially reparative properties. However, some lesions are located in sites that are difficult to access, such as the heart, spinal cord, and joints. Additionally, low MSC retention at target sites makes cell therapy short-lasting and, therefore, less effective. In this context, the magnetic targeting technique has emerged as a new strategy to aid delivery, increase retention, and enhance the effects of MSCs. This approach uses magnetic nanoparticles to magnetize MSCs and static magnetic fields to guide them in vivo, thus promoting more focused, effective, and lasting retention of MSCs at the target site. In the present review, we discuss the magnetic targeting technique, its principles, and the materials most commonly used; we also discuss its potential for MSC enhancement, and safety concerns that should be addressed before it can be applied in clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 23%
Student > Master 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Engineering 5 9%
Materials Science 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 18 32%
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 12 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,927,127
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#1,212
of 2,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,737
of 307,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#34
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 307,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.