| Title |
Evolution of the clonogenic potential of human epidermal stem/progenitor cells with age
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem cells and cloning advances and applications, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/sccaa.s28355 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Olivia Zobiri, Nathalie Deshayes, Michelle Rathman-Josserand |
| Abstract |
A number of clinical observations have indicated that the regenerative potential and overall function of the epidermis is modified with age. The epidermis becomes thinner, repairs itself less efficiently after wounding, and presents modified barrier function recovery. In addition, the dermal papillae fatten out with increasing age, suggesting a modification in the interaction between epidermal and dermal compartments. As the epidermal regenerative capacity is dependent upon stem and progenitor cell function, it is naturally of interest to identify and understand age-related changes in these particular keratinocyte populations. Previous studies have indicated that the number of stem cells does not decrease with age in mouse models but little solid evidence is currently available concerning human skin. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clonogenic potential of keratinocyte populations isolated from the epidermis of over 50 human donors ranging from 18 to 71 years old. The data indicate that the number of epidermal cells presenting high regenerative potential does not dramatically decline with age in human skin. The authors believe that changes in the microenvironment controlling epidermal basal cell activity are more likely to explain the differences in epidermal function observed with increasing age. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 50% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 25% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
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 29 February 2012.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Stem cells and cloning advances and applications
#56
of 67 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,034
of 254,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem cells and cloning advances and applications
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 254,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them