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 |
Muscle-Bound Primordial Stem Cells Give Rise to Myofiber-Associated Myogenic and Non-Myogenic Progenitors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0025605 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elad Segev, Gabi Shefer, Rivka Adar, Noa Chapal-Ilani, Shalev Itzkovitz, Inna Horovitz, Yitzhak Reizel, Dafna Benayahu, Ehud Shapiro |
| Abstract |
Myofiber cultures give rise to myogenic as well as to non-myogenic cells. Whether these myofiber-associated non-myogenic cells develop from resident stem cells that possess mesenchymal plasticity or from other stem cells such as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) remain unsolved. To address this question, we applied a method for reconstructing cell lineage trees from somatic mutations to MSCs and myogenic and non-myogenic cells from individual myofibers that were cultured at clonal density.Our analyses show that (i) in addition to myogenic progenitors, myofibers also harbor non-myogenic progenitors of a distinct, yet close, lineage; (ii) myofiber-associated non-myogenic and myogenic cells share the same muscle-bound primordial stem cells of a lineage distinct from bone marrow MSCs; (iii) these muscle-bound primordial stem-cells first part to individual muscles and then differentiate into myogenic and non-myogenic stem cells. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 29% |
| Researcher | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 41% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 12% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 12% |
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 15 October 2011.
All research outputs
#17,648,479
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#146,133
of 193,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,382
of 136,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,060
of 2,564 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 136,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,564 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.