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 |
Dynamic cellular phenotyping defines specific mobilization mechanisms of human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells induced by SDF1α versus synthetic agents
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41598-018-19557-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cornelia Monzel, Alexandra S. Becker, Rainer Saffrich, Patrick Wuchter, Volker Eckstein, Anthony D. Ho, Motomu Tanaka |
| Abstract |
Efficient mobilization of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPC) is one of the most crucial issues for harvesting an adequate amount of peripheral HSPC for successful clinical transplantation. Applying well-defined surrogate models for the bone marrow niche, live cell imaging techniques, and novel tools in statistical physics, we have quantified the functionality of two mobilization agents that have been applied in the clinic, NOX-A12 and AMD3100 (plerixafor), as compared to a naturally occurring chemokine in the bone marrow, SDF1α. We found that NOX-A12, an L-enantiomeric RNA oligonucleotide to SDF1, significantly reduced the adhesion of HSPC to the niche surface mediated via the CXCR4-SDF1α axis, and stretched the migration trajectories of the HSPC. We found that the stretching of trajectories by NOX-A12 was more prominent than that by SDF1α. In contrast, plerixafor exhibited no detectable interference with adhesion and migration. We also found that the deformation of HSPC induced by SDF1α or plerixafor was also drastically suppressed in the presence of NOX-A12. This novel technology of quantitative assessment of "dynamic phenotypes" by physical tools has therefore enabled us to define different mechanisms of function for various extrinsic factors compared to naturally occurring chemokines. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 14% |
| Japan | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 September 2018.
All research outputs
#8,684,766
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#59,868
of 142,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,646
of 451,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,726
of 3,906 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 142,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 451,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,906 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.