↓ Skip to main content

Connections Matter: Channeled Hydrogels to Improve Vascularization

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Connections Matter: Channeled Hydrogels to Improve Vascularization
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2014.00052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Severin Muehleder, Aleksandr Ovsianikov, Johannes Zipperle, Heinz Redl, Wolfgang Holnthoner

Abstract

The use of cell-laden hydrogels to engineer soft tissue has been emerging within the past years. Despite, several newly developed and sophisticated techniques to encapsulate different cell types the importance of vascularization of the engineered constructs is often underestimated. As a result, cell death within a construct leads to impaired function and inclusion of the implant. Here, we discuss the fabrication of hollow channels within hydrogels as a promising strategy to facilitate vascularization. Furthermore, we present an overview on the feasible use of removable spacers, 3D laser-, and planar processing strategies to create channels within hydrogels. The implementation of these structures promotes control over cell distribution and increases oxygen transport and nutrient supply in vitro. However, many studies lack the use of endothelial cells in their approaches leaving out an important factor to enhance vessel ingrowth and anastomosis formation upon implantation. In addition, the adequate endothelial cell type needs to be considered to make these approaches bridge the gap to in vivo applications.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 98 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 27%
Student > Master 18 18%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 18 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 26 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Materials Science 8 8%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 21 21%
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 14 November 2014.
All research outputs
#18,383,471
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#3,381
of 6,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,762
of 258,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#22
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 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 6,524 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 258,049 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 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.