↓ Skip to main content

A novel method to derive amniotic fluid stem cells for therapeutic purposes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Molecular and Cell Biology, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 1,233)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
patent
4 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
A novel method to derive amniotic fluid stem cells for therapeutic purposes
Published in
BMC Molecular and Cell Biology, October 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2121-11-79
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tatsanee Phermthai, Yuparat Odglun, Suphakde Julavijitphong, Vitaya Titapant, Prakong Chuenwattana, Chanchai Vantanasiri, Kovit Pattanapanyasat

Abstract

Human amniotic fluid stem (hAFS) cells have become an attractive stem cell source for medical therapy due to both their ability to propagate as stem cells and the lack of ethical debate that comes with the use of embryonic stem cells. Although techniques to derive stem cells from amniotic fluid are available, the techniques have limitations for clinical uses, including a requirement of long periods of time for stem cell production, population heterogeneity and xeno-contamination from using animal antibody-coated magnetic beads. Herein we describe a novel isolation method that fits for hAFS derivation for cell-based therapy.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 66 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Other 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Engineering 4 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 11 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 24 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,923,291
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Molecular and Cell Biology
#20
of 1,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,868
of 108,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Molecular and Cell Biology
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,233 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 108,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.