↓ Skip to main content

Glycan Profiling Shows Unvaried N-Glycomes in MSC Clones with Distinct Differentiation Potentials

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Glycan Profiling Shows Unvaried N-Glycomes in MSC Clones with Distinct Differentiation Potentials
Published in
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fcell.2016.00052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wilson, Katherine M., Thomas-Oates, Jane E., Genever, Paul G., Ungar, Daniel, Wilson, KM, Thomas-Oates, JE, Genever, PG, Ungar, D

Abstract

Different cell types have different N-glycomes in mammals. This means that cellular differentiation is accompanied by changes in the N-glycan profile. Yet when the N-glycomes of cell types with differing fates diverge is unclear. We have investigated the N-glycan profiles of two different clonal populations of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). One clone (Y101), when differentiated into osteoblasts, showed a marked shift in the glycan profile toward a higher abundance of complex N-glycans and more core fucosylation. Yet chemical inhibition of complex glycan formation during osteogenic differentiation did not prevent the formation of functional osteoblasts. However, the N-glycan profile of another MSC clone (Y202), which cannot differentiate into osteoblasts, was not significantly different from that of the clone that can. Interestingly, incubation of Y202 cells in osteogenic medium caused a similar reduction of oligomannose glycan content in this non-differentiating cell line. Our analysis implies that the N-glycome changes seen upon differentiation do not have direct functional links to the differentiation process. Thus N-glycans may instead be important for self-renewal rather than for cell fate determination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 27%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Chemistry 2 9%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 23%
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 05 February 2018.
All research outputs
#17,806,995
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
#4,301
of 9,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,003
of 338,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
#29
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,051 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 338,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.