↓ Skip to main content

Chm-1 gene-modified bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells maintain the chondrogenic phenotype of tissue-engineered cartilage

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Research & Therapy, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Chm-1 gene-modified bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells maintain the chondrogenic phenotype of tissue-engineered cartilage
Published in
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13287-016-0328-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhuoyue Chen, Jing Wei, Jun Zhu, Wei Liu, Jihong Cui, Hongmin Li, Fulin Chen

Abstract

Marrow mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) can differentiate into specific phenotypes, including chondrocytes, and have been widely used for cartilage tissue engineering. However, cartilage grafts from MSCs exhibit phenotypic alternations after implantation, including matrix calcification and vascular ingrowth. We compared chondromodulin-1 (Chm-1) expression between chondrocytes and MSCs. We found that chondrocytes expressed a high level of Chm-1. We then adenovirally transduced MSCs with Chm-1 and applied modified cells to engineer cartilage in vivo. A gross inspection and histological observation indicated that the chondrogenic phenotype of the tissue-engineered cartilage graft was well maintained, and the stable expression of Chm-1 was detected by immunohistological staining in the cartilage graft derived from the Chm-1 gene-modified MSCs. Our findings defined an essential role for Chm-1 in maintaining chondrogenic phenotype and demonstrated that Chm-1 gene-modified MSCs may be used in cartilage tissue engineering.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 25%
Student > Postgraduate 3 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 3 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Chemical Engineering 1 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%
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 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,456,836
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#1,733
of 2,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,813
of 298,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#24
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 298,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.