↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Regulators of pluripotency and their implications in regenerative medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Stem cells and cloning advances and applications, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Regulators of pluripotency and their implications in regenerative medicine
Published in
Stem cells and cloning advances and applications, April 2015
DOI 10.2147/sccaa.s80157
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmed El-Badawy, Nagwa El-Badri

Abstract

The ultimate goal of regenerative medicine is to replace damaged tissues with new functioning ones. This can potentially be accomplished by stem cell transplantation. While stem cell transplantation for blood diseases has been increasingly successful, widespread application of stem cell therapy in the clinic has shown limited results. Despite successful efforts to refine existing methodologies and to develop better ones for reprogramming, clinical application of stem cell therapy suffers from issues related to the safety of the transplanted cells, as well as the low efficiency of reprogramming technology. Better understanding of the underlying mechanism(s) involved in pluripotency should accelerate the clinical application of stem cell transplantation for regenerative purposes. This review outlines the main decision-making factors involved in pluripotency, focusing on the role of microRNAs, epigenetic modification, signaling pathways, and toll-like receptors. Of special interest is the role of toll-like receptors in pluripotency, where emerging data indicate that the innate immune system plays a vital role in reprogramming. Based on these data, we propose that nongenetic mechanisms for reprogramming provide a novel and perhaps an essential strategy to accelerate application of regenerative medicine in the clinic.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Philosophy 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 May 2015.
All research outputs
#8,618,954
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Stem cells and cloning advances and applications
#32
of 67 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,620
of 279,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem cells and cloning advances and applications
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 67 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 279,651 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.