↓ Skip to main content

Stabilization of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 Alpha Augments the Therapeutic Capacity of Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Experimental Pneumonia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Stabilization of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 Alpha Augments the Therapeutic Capacity of Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Experimental Pneumonia
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00131
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naveen Gupta, Victor Nizet

Abstract

Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have therapeutic effects in experimental models of lung injury. Hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1α) is a transcriptional regulator that influences cellular metabolism, energetics, and survival under hypoxic conditions. The current study investigated the effects of stabilizing HIF-1α on the therapeutic capacity of MSCs in an experimental mouse model of bacterial pneumonia. HIF-1α stabilization was achieved by the small molecule prolyl-hydroxlase inhibitor, AKB-4924 (Aerpio Therapeutics, Inc.), which blocks the pathway for HIF-1α degradation in the proteosome. In vitro, pre-treatment with AKB-4924 increased HIF-1α levels in MSCs, reduced the kinetics of their cell death when exposed to cytotoxic stimuli, and increased their antibacterial capacity. In vivo, AKB-4924 enhanced MSC therapeutic capacity in experimental pneumonia as quantified by a sustainable survival benefit, greater bacterial clearance from the lung, decreased lung injury, and reduced inflammatory indices. These results suggest that HIF-1α stabilization in MSCs, achieved ex vivo, may represent a promising approach to augment the therapeutic benefit of these cells in severe pneumonia complicated by acute lung injury.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
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 22 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,948,821
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,697
of 5,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,015
of 326,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#77
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 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 5,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 326,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.