↓ Skip to main content

Epigenetic aging of human hematopoietic cells is not accelerated upon transplantation into mice

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epigenetics, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Epigenetic aging of human hematopoietic cells is not accelerated upon transplantation into mice
Published in
Clinical Epigenetics, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13148-018-0499-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joana Frobel, Susann Rahmig, Julia Franzen, Claudia Waskow, Wolfgang Wagner

Abstract

Transplantation of human hematopoietic stem cells into immunodeficient mice provides a powerful in vivo model system to gain functional insights into hematopoietic differentiation. So far, it remains unclear if epigenetic changes of normal human hematopoiesis are recapitulated upon engraftment into such "humanized mice." Mice have a much shorter life expectancy than men, and therefore, we hypothesized that the xenogeneic environment might greatly accelerate the epigenetic clock. We demonstrate that genome-wide DNA methylation patterns of normal human hematopoietic development are indeed recapitulated upon engraftment in mice-particularly those of normal early B cell progenitor cells. Furthermore, we tested three epigenetic aging signatures, and none of them indicated that the murine environment accelerated age-associated DNA methylation changes. Epigenetic changes of human hematopoietic development are recapitulated in the murine transplantation model, whereas epigenetic aging is not accelerated by the faster aging environment and seems to occur in the cell intrinsically.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 23%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Unknown 2 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#8,073,512
of 14,015,503 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#442
of 718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,101
of 277,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,015,503 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 277,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them