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.
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.
| Title |
Mesenchymal and induced pluripotent stem cells: general insights and clinical perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem cells and cloning advances and applications, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/sccaa.s88036 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helena D Zomer, Atanásio S Vidane, Natalia N Gonçalves, Carlos E Ambrósio |
| Abstract |
Mesenchymal stem cells have awakened a great deal of interest in regenerative medicine due to their plasticity, and immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties. They are high-yield and can be acquired through noninvasive methods from adult tissues. Moreover, they are nontumorigenic and are the most widely studied. On the other hand, induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells can be derived directly from adult cells through gene reprogramming. The new iPS technology avoids the embryo destruction or manipulation to generate pluripotent cells, therefore, are exempt from ethical implication surrounding embryonic stem cell use. The pre-differentiation of iPS cells ensures the safety of future approaches. Both mesenchymal stem cells and iPS cells can be used for autologous cell transplantations without the risk of immune rejection and represent a great opportunity for future alternative therapies. In this review we discussed the therapeutic perspectives using mesenchymal and iPS cells. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 282 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 282 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 49 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 44 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 15% |
| Researcher | 30 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 9% |
| Unknown | 79 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 63 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 36 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 12% |
| Engineering | 21 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 30 | 11% |
| Unknown | 89 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 April 2020.
All research outputs
#6,930,354
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Stem cells and cloning advances and applications
#28
of 69 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,248
of 276,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem cells and cloning advances and applications
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 69 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 276,789 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.