↓ Skip to main content

Autologous mesenchymal stem cells or meniscal cells: what is the best cell source for regenerative meniscus treatment in an early osteoarthritis situation?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Autologous mesenchymal stem cells or meniscal cells: what is the best cell source for regenerative meniscus treatment in an early osteoarthritis situation?
Published in
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13287-017-0678-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johannes Zellner, Girish Pattappa, Matthias Koch, Siegmund Lang, Johannes Weber, Christian G. Pfeifer, Michael B. Mueller, Richard Kujat, Michael Nerlich, Peter Angele

Abstract

Treatment of meniscus tears within the avascular region represents a significant challenge, particularly in a situation of early osteoarthritis. Cell-based tissue engineering approaches have shown promising results. However, studies have not found a consensus on the appropriate autologous cell source in a clinical situation, specifically in a challenging degenerative environment. The present study sought to evaluate the appropriate cell source for autologous meniscal repair in a demanding setting of early osteoarthritis. A rabbit model was used to test autologous meniscal repair. Bone marrow and medial menisci were harvested 4 weeks prior to surgery. Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and meniscal cells were isolated, expanded, and seeded onto collagen-hyaluronan scaffolds before implantation. A punch defect model was performed on the lateral meniscus and then a cell-seeded scaffold was press-fit into the defect. Following 6 or 12 weeks, gross joint morphology and OARSI grade were assessed, and menisci were harvested for macroscopic, histological, and immunohistochemical evaluation using a validated meniscus scoring system. In conjunction, human meniscal cells isolated from non-repairable bucket handle tears and human MSCs were expanded and, using the pellet culture model, assessed for their meniscus-like potential in a translational setting through collagen type I and II immunostaining, collagen type II enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and gene expression analysis. After resections of the medial menisci, all knees showed early osteoarthritic changes (average OARSI grade 3.1). However, successful repair of meniscus punch defects was performed using either meniscal cells or MSCs. Gross joint assessment demonstrated donor site morbidity for meniscal cell treatment. Furthermore, human MSCs had significantly increased collagen type II gene expression and production compared to meniscal cells (p < 0.05). The regenerative potential of the meniscus by an autologous cell-based tissue engineering approach was shown even in a challenging setting of early osteoarthritis. Autologous MSCs and meniscal cells were found to have improved meniscal healing in an animal model, thus demonstrating their feasibility in a clinical setting. However, donor site morbidity, reduced availability, and reduced chondrogenic differentiation of human meniscal cells from debris of meniscal tears favors autologous MSCs for clinical use for cell-based meniscus regeneration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 25 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Engineering 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 25 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#12,862,254
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#846
of 2,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,945
of 324,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#24
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,429 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 64% 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 324,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 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 67% of its contemporaries.