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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
‘Above all, do no harm’: safeguarding pluripotent stem cell therapy against iatrogenic tumorigenesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/scrt462 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marek Malecki |
| Abstract |
Human pluripotent stem cells are the foundations of regenerative medicine. However, the worst possible complication of using pluripotent stem cells in therapy could be iatrogenic cancerogenesis. Nevertheless, despite the rapid progress in the development of new techniques for induction of pluripotency and for directed differentiation, risks of cancerogenic transformation of therapeutically implanted pluripotent stem cells still persist. 'Above all, do no harm', as quoted from the Hippocratic Oath, is our ultimate creed. Therefore, the primary goal in designing any therapeutic regimes involving stem cells should be the elimination of any possibilities of their neoplasmic transformation. I review here the basic strategies that have been designed to attain this goal: sorting out undifferentiated, pluripotent stem cells with antibodies targeting surface-displayed biomarkers; sorting in differentiating cells, which express recombinant proteins as reporters; killing undifferentiated stem cells with toxic antibodies or antibody-guided toxins; eliminating undifferentiated stem cells with cytotoxic drugs; making potentially tumorigenic stem cells sensitive to pro-drugs by transformation with suicide-inducing genes; eradication of differentiation-refractive stem cells by self-triggered transgenic expression of human recombinant DNases. Every pluripotent undifferentiated stem cell poses a risk of neoplasmic transformation. Therefore, the aforementioned or other novel strategies that would safeguard against iatrogenic transformation of these stem cells should be considered for incorporation into every stem cell therapy trial. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 October 2015.
All research outputs
#5,408,726
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#512
of 2,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,516
of 227,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,415 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 done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 227,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.