↓ Skip to main content

Heart regeneration for clinical application update 2016: from induced pluripotent stem cells to direct cardiac reprogramming

Overview of attention for article published in Inflammation and Regeneration, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Heart regeneration for clinical application update 2016: from induced pluripotent stem cells to direct cardiac reprogramming
Published in
Inflammation and Regeneration, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41232-016-0028-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroyuki Yamakawa

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease remains a major cause of death for which current therapeutic regimens are limited. Following myocardial injury, endogenous cardiac fibroblasts, which account for more than half of the cells in the heart, proliferate and synthesize extracellular matrix, leading to fibrosis and heart failure. As terminally differentiated cardiomyocytes have little regenerative capacity following injury, the development of cardiac regenerative therapy is highly desired. Embryonic stem and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells are promising tools for regenerative medicine. However, these stem cells demonstrate variable cardiac differentiation efficiency and tumorigenicity, which must be resolved prior to clinical regenerative applications. Until the last decade, an established theory was that cardiomyocytes could only be produced from fibroblasts through iPS cell generation. In 2010, we first reported cardiac differentiation from fibroblasts by direct reprogramming, and we demonstrated that various cardiac reprogramming pathways exist. This review summarizes the latest trends in stem cell and regenerative research regarding iPS cells, a partial reprogramming strategy, and direct cardiac reprogramming. We also examine the many recent advances in direct cardiac reprogramming and explore the suitable utilization of these methods for regenerative medicine in the cardiovascular field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Unspecified 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,169,543
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Inflammation and Regeneration
#118
of 258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,382
of 320,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Inflammation and Regeneration
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 320,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.