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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 18 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 November 2023.
All research outputs
#8,100,997
of 25,008,338 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,278
of 4,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,972
of 335,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#38
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,008,338 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,480 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 335,545 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 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 73% of its contemporaries.