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 |
Pathological classification of human iPSC-derived neural stem/progenitor cells towards safety assessment of transplantation therapy for CNS diseases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Molecular Brain, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13041-016-0265-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Keiko Sugai, Ryuji Fukuzawa, Tomoko Shofuda, Hayato Fukusumi, Soya Kawabata, Yuichiro Nishiyama, Yuichiro Higuchi, Kenji Kawai, Miho Isoda, Daisuke Kanematsu, Tomoko Hashimoto-Tamaoki, Jun Kohyama, Akio Iwanami, Hiroshi Suemizu, Eiji Ikeda, Morio Matsumoto, Yonehiro Kanemura, Masaya Nakamura, Hideyuki Okano |
| Abstract |
The risk of tumorigenicity is a hurdle for regenerative medicine using induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Although teratoma formation is readily distinguishable, the malignant transformation of iPSC derivatives has not been clearly defined due to insufficient analysis of histology and phenotype. In the present study, we evaluated the histology of neural stem/progenitor cells (NSPCs) generated from integration-free human peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC)-derived iPSCs (iPSC-NSPCs) following transplantation into central nervous system (CNS) of immunodeficient mice. We found that transplanted iPSC-NSPCs produced differentiation patterns resembling those in embryonic CNS development, and that the microenvironment of the final site of migration affected their maturational stage. Genomic instability of iPSCs correlated with increased proliferation of transplants, although no carcinogenesis was evident. The histological classifications presented here may provide cues for addressing potential safety issues confronting regenerative medicine involving iPSCs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 12 | 28% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 9% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
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 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#17,816,222
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Brain
#749
of 1,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,706
of 320,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Brain
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 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 1,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 320,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.