↓ Skip to main content

Changes in immunological profile of allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells after differentiation: should we be concerned?

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Research & Therapy, August 2014
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
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Changes in immunological profile of allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells after differentiation: should we be concerned?
Published in
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/scrt488
Pubmed ID
Abstract

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are an adult stromal cell population possessing potent differentiation capacity and a potential for use across major histocompatibility complex barriers. Although allogeneic MSCs have potent immunosuppressive properties, evidence also suggests that they elicit a weak allogeneic immune response. However, the effect of induced differentiation on the immunosuppressive ability and immunogenicity of allogeneic MSCs is a potential obstacle when applying MSCs in tissue replacement therapies. These concerns will be explored in this review, with particular emphasis on changes in the cell surface expression of immunogenic markers, changes in the secretion of immunosuppressive molecules and in vivo functional benefits of the cell therapy. We review the literature from a translational point of view, focusing on pre-clinical studies that have utilised and analysed the effects of allogeneic immune responses on the ability of allogeneic MSCs to regenerate damaged tissue in models of bone, heart and cartilage defects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 25%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Engineering 4 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 5 10%

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 26 August 2014.
All research outputs
#2,286,063
of 4,507,778 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#178
of 351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,586
of 114,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,778 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 351 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 114,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.