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 |
Comparison of a xeno-free and serum-free culture system for human embryonic stem cells with conventional culture systems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13287-016-0347-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dan Zhang, Qingyun Mai, Tao Li, Jia Huang, Chenhui Ding, Mengxi Jia, Canquan Zhou, Yanwen Xu |
| Abstract |
Elimination of all animal components during derivation and long-term culture of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) is necessary for future applications of hESCs in clinical cell therapy. In this study, we established the culture system of xeno-free human foreskin fibroblast feeders (XF-HFF) in combination with chemically defined medium (CDM). XF-HFF/CDM was compared with several conventional culture systems. The hESCs cultured in different media were further characterized through karyotype analysis, pluripotency gene expression, and cell differentiation ability. The hESCs in the XF-HFF/CDM maintained their characteristics including typical morphology and stable karyotype. In addition, hESCs were characterized by fluorescent immunostaining of pluripotent markers and teratoma formation in vivo. RT-PCR analysis shown that the stem cell markers OCT3/4, hTERT, SOX2, and Nanog were present in the cell line hESC-1 grown on XF-HFF/CDM. Furthermore, the results of cell growth and expression of bFGF, Oct-4, and hTERT indicated that XF-HFF/CDM had better performance than human serum-matrix/CDM and XF-HFF/human serum. The comparison of different xeno-free culture conditions will facilitate clarifying the key features of self-renewal, pluripotency, and derivation and will shed light on clinic applications of hESCs. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 20% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 8% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,672,413
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#340
of 2,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,551
of 365,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#10
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,425 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 365,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.