↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of alternative signaling pathways of endoderm induction of human embryonic stem cells identifies context specific differences

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Systems Biology, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Analysis of alternative signaling pathways of endoderm induction of human embryonic stem cells identifies context specific differences
Published in
BMC Systems Biology, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1752-0509-6-154
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shibin Mathew, Maria Jaramillo, Xinan Zhang, Li Ang Zhang, Alejandro Soto-Gutiérrez, Ipsita Banerjee

Abstract

Lineage specific differentiation of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) is largely mediated by specific growth factors and extracellular matrix molecules. Growth factors initiate a cascade of signals which control gene transcription and cell fate specification. There is a lot of interest in inducing hESCs to an endoderm fate which serves as a pathway towards more functional cell types like the pancreatic cells. Research over the past decade has established several robust pathways for deriving endoderm from hESCs, with the capability of further maturation. However, in our experience, the functional maturity of these endoderm derivatives, specifically to pancreatic lineage, largely depends on specific pathway of endoderm induction. Hence it will be of interest to understand the underlying mechanism mediating such induction and how it is translated to further maturation. In this work we analyze the regulatory interactions mediating different pathways of endoderm induction by identifying co-regulated transcription factors.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 41 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 29%
Other 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 16%
Engineering 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Mathematics 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 13 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 December 2012.
All research outputs
#17,673,866
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Systems Biology
#770
of 1,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,727
of 279,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Systems Biology
#37
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,142 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 279,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.