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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Osteogenic and Neurogenic Stem Cells in Their Own Place: Unraveling Differences and Similarities Between Niches
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fncel.2015.00455 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wanda Lattanzi, Roberta Parolisi, Marta Barba, Luca Bonfanti |
| Abstract |
Although therapeutic use of stem cells (SCs) is already available in some tissues (cornea, blood, and skin), in most organs we are far from reaching the translational goal of regenerative medicine. In the nervous system, due to intrinsic features which make it refractory to regeneration/repair, it is very hard to obtain functionally integrated regenerative outcomes, even starting from its own SCs (the neural stem cells; NSCs). Besides NSCs, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have also been proposed for therapeutic purposes in neurological diseases. Yet, direct (regenerative) and indirect (bystander) effects are often confused, as are MSCs and bone marrow-derived (stromal, osteogenic) stem cells (BMSCs), whose plasticity is actually overestimated (i.e., trans-differentiation along non-mesodermal lineages, including neural fates). In order to better understand failure in the "regenerative" use of SCs for neurological disorders, it could be helpful to understand how NSCs and BMSCs have adapted to their respective organ niches. In this perspective, here the adult osteogenic and neurogenic niches are considered and compared within their in vivo environment. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
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 24 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,296,405
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#3,580
of 4,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#324,050
of 386,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#90
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 386,693 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.