↓ Skip to main content

Direct reprogramming of human neural stem cells by OCT4

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, August 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
1 tweeter
patent
28 patents
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
517 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
521 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
connotea
4 Connotea
Title
Direct reprogramming of human neural stem cells by OCT4
Published in
Nature, August 2009
DOI 10.1038/nature08436
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeong Beom Kim, Boris Greber, Marcos J. Araúzo-Bravo, Johann Meyer, Kook In Park, Holm Zaehres, Hans R. Schöler

Abstract

Induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells have been generated from mouse and human somatic cells by ectopic expression of four transcription factors (OCT4 (also called POU5F1), SOX2, c-Myc and KLF4). We previously reported that Oct4 alone is sufficient to reprogram directly adult mouse neural stem cells to iPS cells. Here we report the generation of one-factor human iPS cells from human fetal neural stem cells (one-factor (1F) human NiPS cells) by ectopic expression of OCT4 alone. One-factor human NiPS cells resemble human embryonic stem cells in global gene expression profiles, epigenetic status, as well as pluripotency in vitro and in vivo. These findings demonstrate that the transcription factor OCT4 is sufficient to reprogram human neural stem cells to pluripotency. One-factor iPS cell generation will advance the field further towards understanding reprogramming and generating patient-specific pluripotent stem cells.

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 521 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 16 3%
Germany 6 1%
Spain 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Ukraine 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Taiwan 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Other 14 3%
Unknown 468 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 148 28%
Researcher 128 25%
Student > Master 56 11%
Student > Bachelor 43 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 33 6%
Other 88 17%
Unknown 25 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 301 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 74 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 57 11%
Neuroscience 24 5%
Engineering 11 2%
Other 23 4%
Unknown 31 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 08 February 2020.
All research outputs
#621,481
of 14,330,165 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#23,865
of 71,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,820
of 109,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#405
of 948 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,330,165 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 71,898 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 79.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 109,722 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 948 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 57% of its contemporaries.