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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Pluripotent Stem Cells for Schwann Cell Engineering
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-014-9577-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ming-San Ma, Erik Boddeke, Sjef Copray |
| Abstract |
Tissue engineering of Schwann cells (SCs) can serve a number of purposes, such as in vitro SC-related disease modeling, treatment of peripheral nerve diseases or peripheral nerve injury, and, potentially, treatment of CNS diseases. SCs can be generated from autologous stem cells in vitro by recapitulating the various stages of in vivo neural crest formation and SC differentiation. In this review, we survey the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying these in vivo processes. We then focus on the current in vitro strategies for generating SCs from two sources of pluripotent stem cells, namely embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Different methods for SC engineering from ESCs and iPSCs are reviewed and suggestions are proposed for optimizing the existing protocols. Potential safety issues regarding the clinical application of iPSC-derived SCs are discussed as well. Lastly, we will address future aspects of SC engineering. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 24% |
| Researcher | 17 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 19% |
| Neuroscience | 13 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 13% |
| Engineering | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 22 April 2020.
All research outputs
#2,575,478
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#54
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,575
of 369,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 369,510 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 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.