↓ Skip to main content

Effects of matrix metalloproteinases on the fate of mesenchymal stem cells

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Research & Therapy, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Effects of matrix metalloproteinases on the fate of mesenchymal stem cells
Published in
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13287-016-0393-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sami G. Almalki, Devendra K. Agrawal

Abstract

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have great potential as a source of cells for cell-based therapy because of their ability for self-renewal and differentiation into functional cells. Moreover, matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) have a critical role in the differentiation of MSCs into different lineages. MSCs also interact with exogenous MMPs at their surface, and regulate the pericellular localization of MMP activities. The fate of MSCs is regulated by specific MMPs associated with a key cell lineage. Recent reports suggest the integration of MMPs in the differentiation, angiogenesis, proliferation, and migration of MSCs. These interactions are not fully understood and warrant further investigation, especially for their application as therapeutic tools to treat different diseases. Therefore, overexpression of a single MMP or tissue-specific inhibitor of metalloproteinase in MSCs may promote transdifferentiation into a specific cell lineage, which can be used for the treatment of some diseases. In this review, we critically discuss the identification of various MMPs and the signaling pathways that affect the differentiation, migration, angiogenesis, and proliferation of MSCs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 146 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 29%
Student > Master 26 18%
Researcher 23 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 27 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 36 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 13%
Engineering 7 5%
Materials Science 6 4%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 34 23%

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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,372,445
of 8,396,916 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#522
of 680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,778
of 254,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#28
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,396,916 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 680 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 254,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.