↓ Skip to main content

Comparable osteogenic capacity of mesenchymal stem or stromal cells derived from human amnion membrane and bone marrow

Overview of attention for article published in Methods in Cell Science, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Comparable osteogenic capacity of mesenchymal stem or stromal cells derived from human amnion membrane and bone marrow
Published in
Methods in Cell Science, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10616-017-0177-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mehran Ghasemzadeh, Ehteramolsadat Hosseini, Mohammadhossein Ahmadi, Maedeh Kamalizad, Naser Amirizadeh

Abstract

So far, substantial attentions have been attracted to the application of mesenchymal stem or stromal cells (MSCs) in different therapeutic approaches. Although human bone marrow is commonly considered as a major source for MSCs, having an invasive collection method, ethical consideration and donor availability create a challenge for scientists, leading them to explore better alternative sources for MSCs. The study presented here aimed to characterize and compare osteogenic capacity of MSCs obtained from the amnion membrane (AM) with those originated from BM. Cells isolated from AMs and BMs were cultured in DMEM-low glucose supplemented with FBS, penicillin and streptomycin. After 24 h of incubation, cells adhered to the plastic surface of the flasks were allowed to proliferate for more days. A sub-confluent culture of cells was trypsinized and re-cultured. The MSCs were characterized by the expression of specific markers with flow cytometry. The osteogenic differentiation of MSCs was also validated by alkaline phosphatase and alizarian red S staining. Our results showed comparable expression of MSCs specific markers for both MSC sources (AM and BM). We also showed the optimum osteogenic differentiation of MSCs from both sources whereas hAM-MSCs revealed higher proliferation rate. We found no essential immunophenotypic differences between MSCs originated from bone marrow and amnion membrane while their differentiations into osteoblastic linage were also comparable. This was in addition to the higher proliferation rate observed for hAM-MSCs which suggests hAM as an easily accessible and reliable source of MSCs applicable for bone engineering, regenerative medicine or other therapeutic approaches.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Philosophy 1 5%
Materials Science 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 37%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 January 2018.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Methods in Cell Science
#908
of 1,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#389,629
of 449,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in Cell Science
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,026 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 449,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.