↓ Skip to main content

Effect of different freezing rates during cryopreservation of rat mesenchymal stem cells using combinations of hydroxyethyl starch and dimethylsulfoxide

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biotechnology, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Effect of different freezing rates during cryopreservation of rat mesenchymal stem cells using combinations of hydroxyethyl starch and dimethylsulfoxide
Published in
BMC Biotechnology, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6750-12-49
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yahaira Naaldijk, Marek Staude, Viktoriya Fedorova, Alexandra Stolzing

Abstract

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are increasingly used as therapeutic agents as well as research tools in regenerative medicine. Development of technologies which allow storing and banking of MSC with minimal loss of cell viability, differentiation capacity, and function is required for clinical and research applications. Cryopreservation is the most effective way to preserve cells long term, but it involves potentially cytotoxic compounds and processing steps. Here, we investigate the effect of decreasing dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) concentrations in cryosolution by substituting with hydroxyethyl starch (HES) of different molecular weights using different freezing rates. Post-thaw viability, phenotype and osteogenic differentiation capacity of MSCs were analysed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Jordan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 123 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 24%
Researcher 25 20%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 13%
Engineering 13 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 5%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 26 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,381,113
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biotechnology
#360
of 935 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,711
of 167,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biotechnology
#7
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 935 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 167,391 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 68% of its contemporaries.