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 |
Role of whole bone marrow, whole bone marrow cultured cells, and mesenchymal stem cells in chronic wound healing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13287-015-0001-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luis Rodriguez-Menocal, Shahjahan Shareef, Marcela Salgado, Arsalan Shabbir, Evangelos Van Badiavas |
| Abstract |
Recent evidence has shown that bone marrow cells play critical roles during the inflammatory, proliferative and remodeling phases of cutaneous wound healing. Among the bone marrow cells delivered to wounds are stem cells, which can differentiate into multiple tissue-forming cell lineages to effect, healing. Gaining insight into which lineages are most important in accelerating wound healing would be quite valuable in designing therapeutic approaches for difficult to heal wounds. In this report we compared the effect of different bone marrow preparations on established in vitro wound healing assays. The preparations examined were whole bone marrow (WBM), whole bone marrow (long term initiating/hematopoietic based) cultured cells (BMC), and bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSC). We also applied these bone marrow preparations in two murine models of radiation induced delayed wound healing to determine which had a greater effect on healing. Angiogenesis assays demonstrated that tube formation was stimulated by both WBM and BMC, with WBM having the greatest effect. Scratch wound assays showed higher fibroblast migration at 24, 48, and 72 hours in presence of WBM as compared to BM-MSC. WBM also appeared to stimulate a greater healing response than BMC and BM-MSC in a radiation induced delayed wound healing animal model. These studies promise to help elucidate the role of stem cells during repair of chronic wounds and reveal which cells present in bone marrow might contribute most to the wound healing process. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 104 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 14% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 26 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 19 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 17% |
| Engineering | 12 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 29 | 28% |
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 14 March 2015.
All research outputs
#18,402,666
of 22,794,367 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#1,727
of 2,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,379
of 260,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#52
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,794,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 260,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.