↓ Skip to main content

Matrix scaffolding for stem cell guidance toward skeletal muscle tissue engineering

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Matrix scaffolding for stem cell guidance toward skeletal muscle tissue engineering
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13018-016-0421-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Fuoco, Lucia Lisa Petrilli, Stefano Cannata, Cesare Gargioli

Abstract

Extracellular matrix (ECM) is composed of many types of fibrous structural proteins and glycosaminoglycans. This important cell component not only provides a support for cells but is also actively involved in cell-cell interaction, proliferation, migration, and differentiation, representing, therefore, no longer only a mere static structural scaffold for cells but rather a dynamic and versatile compartment. This aspect leads to the need for investigating new bio-inspired scaffolds or biomaterials, able to mimic ECM in tissue engineering. This new field of research finds particular employment in skeletal muscle tissue regeneration, due to the inability of this complex tissue to recover volumetric muscle loss (VML), after severe injury. Usually, this is the result of traumatic incidents, tumor ablations, or pathological states that lead to the destruction of a large amount of tissue, including connective tissue and basement membrane. Therefore, skeletal muscle tissue engineering represents a valid alternative to overcome this problem.Here, we described a series of natural and synthetic biomaterials employed as ECM mimics for their ability to recreate the correct muscle stem cell niche, by promoting myogenic stem cell differentiation and so, positively affecting muscle repair.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 22%
Researcher 22 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 16%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 26 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 21%
Engineering 26 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Materials Science 4 3%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 32 23%
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 31 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,486,178
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#319
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,565
of 365,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#6
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,378 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 365,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.