↓ Skip to main content

Method and key points for isolation of human amniotic epithelial cells with high yield, viability and purity

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Method and key points for isolation of human amniotic epithelial cells with high yield, viability and purity
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2880-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hossein Motedayyen, Nafiseh Esmaeil, Nader Tajik, Fahimeh Khadem, Somayeh Ghotloo, Behnaz Khani, Abbas Rezaei

Abstract

Human amniotic epithelial cells (hAECs) which are isolated from the amniotic membrane have stem cell-like properties and immunomodulatory effects. Several protocols have been proposed for isolation of hAECs, nevertheless, there is no report concerning isolation of highly viable hAECs, with desirable yield, and without significant purity reduction. In the current study, a detailed protocol with some modification of previous ones is presented in which the amendments led to isolation of hAECs with high purity, yield and viability. Moreover, isolated hAECs were subjected to immuno-phenotyping and their physiological status was assessed using a proliferation assay. The average yield of obtained hAECs using the new modified method was 190 × 10(6) cells with a mean viability of 87%, with less than 1% contamination with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). The isolated cells were > 95% positive for the epithelial cell markers. The lowest initial plating efficiency of the cells was 80%. Freshly isolated hAECs had the ability to proliferate for 5-6 passages in a standard culture medium.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 November 2017.
All research outputs
#10,728,268
of 12,098,562 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,210
of 2,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,971
of 285,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#210
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,098,562 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,683 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 285,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.