↓ Skip to main content

Umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells on scaffolds facilitate collagen degradation via upregulation of MMP-9 in rat uterine scars

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Research & Therapy, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells on scaffolds facilitate collagen degradation via upregulation of MMP-9 in rat uterine scars
Published in
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13287-017-0535-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lu Xu, Lijun Ding, Lei Wang, Yun Cao, Hui Zhu, Jingjie Lu, Xin’an Li, Tianran Song, Yali Hu, Jianwu Dai

Abstract

Severe injuries of the uterus may trigger uterine scar formation, ultimately leading to infertility or obstetrical complications. To date, few methods have adequately solved the problem of collagen deposition in uterine scars. Umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells (UC-MSCs) have shown great promise in clinical applications. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of a scaffold/UC-MSCs construct on collagen degradation and functional regeneration in rat uterine scars following full-thickness excision of uterine walls. In order to establish a rat model of uterine scars, the uterine wall of approximately 1.0 cm in length and 0.5 cm in width (one-third of the uterine circumference) was excised from each uterine horn. A total of 128 scarred uterine horns from 64 rats were randomly assigned to four groups, including a PBS group (n = 32 uterine horns), scaffold group (n = 32 uterine horns), UC-MSCs group (n = 32 uterine horns) and scaffold/UC-MSCs group (n = 32 uterine horns) to investigate the effect of different treatments on the structure and function of uterine scars. PBS, degradable collagen fibres, UC-MSCs or UC-MSCs mixed with gelatinous degradable collagen fibres were injected into four pre-marked points surrounding each uterine scar, respectively. At days 30 and 60 post-transplantation, a subset of rats (n = 8 uterine horns) from each group was euthanized and serial sections of uterine tissues containing the operative region were prepared. Haematoxylin-eosin staining, Masson's trichrome staining, and immunohistochemical staining for MMP-2, MMP-9, α-SMA and vWF were performed. Finally, another subset of rats (n = 16 uterine horns) from each group was mated with male rats at day 60 post-transplantation and euthanized 18 days after the presence of vaginal plugs to check numbers, sizes and weights of fetuses, as well as sites of implantation. The scaffold/UC-MSCs group exhibited obvious collagen degradation compared with the other three groups. At day 60 post-transplantation, the number of MMP-9-positive cells in the scaffold/UC-MSCs group (25.96 ± 3.63) was significantly higher than that in the PBS group (8.19 ± 1.61, P < 0.01), the scaffold group (7.25 ± 2.17, P < 0.01) and the UC-MSCs group (8.31 ± 2.77, P < 0.01). The pregnancy rate in the scaffold/UC-MSCs group (10/16) was also significantly higher than that in the PBS group (2/16, P < 0.017), the scaffold group (1/16, P < 0.017) and the UC-MSCs group (3/16, P < 0.017). The scaffold/UC-MSCs system facilitated collagen degradation in uterine scars via upregulation of MMP-9, which was secreted by transplanted UC-MSCs, and promoted regeneration of the endometrium, myometrium and blood vessels in uterine scars. Furthermore, the scaffold/UC-MSCs-treated uterine scars showed nearly complete restoration of receptive fertility.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 24%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 11%
Engineering 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 27 36%
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 27 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,856,443
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#1,017
of 2,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,957
of 310,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#24
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 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 2,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 310,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.