↓ Skip to main content

Lapine periodontal ligament stem cells for musculoskeletal research in preclinical animal trials

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Lapine periodontal ligament stem cells for musculoskeletal research in preclinical animal trials
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12967-018-1551-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. Chopra, C. Liao, C. F. Zhang, E. H. N. Pow

Abstract

Human periodontal ligament stem cells (hPDLSCs) have been shown to be a reliable source of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). On the other hand, rabbits have been commonly used in preclinical trials for musculoskeletal research. However, there is a lack of sufficient data on using rabbit periodontal ligament stem cells (rPDLSCs) for regenerative dentistry. This study, for the first time, comprehensively compared rPDLSCs against hPDLSCs in terms of clonogenicity, growth potential, multi-differential capacity and surface antigens. Periodontal ligament (PDL) was obtained from the rabbit and human teeth. rPDL and hPDL cells were isolated from PDL using enzymatic digestion method. After culturing for 2 weeks, the cells were first analyzed microscopically. STRO-1+CD146+ PDLSCs were then sorted from PDL cells by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) followed by examination of CD34, CD45, CD90, vimentin and desmin markers. The cells were also evaluated by immunohistocytochemical and multi-differentiation potential tests. The clonogenicity and growth of PDL cells were analyzed by Independent T test and 2-way repeated measures ANOVA respectively. rPDL cells were broader and less elongated as compared to hPDL cells. STRO-1+CD146+ hPDLSCs were isolated from hPDL cells but not from the rPDL cells. Therefore, heterogeneous population of rabbit and human PDL cells were subsequently used for latter comparative studies. FACS analysis and immunohistocytochemistry revealed that rPDL cells were partially positive for STRO-1 as compared to hPDL cells. Furthermore, both rPDL cells and hPDL cells were positive for CD146, CD90, vimentin, and desmin, while negative for CD34 and CD45. No difference in clonogenicity between rPDL and hPDL cells was found (p > 0.05). The proliferative potential of rPDL cells displayed significantly slower growth as compared to hPDL cells (p < 0.05). Osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic differentiation potential was comparatively less in rPDL cells than that of hPDL cells, but the neurogenic differential potential was similar. Although rPDL cells manifested variable differences in expression of stem cell markers and multi-differential potential as compared to hPDL cells, they demonstrated the attributes of stemness. Further studies are also required to validate if the regenerative potential of rPDL cells is similar to rPDLSCs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 7 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Unknown 7 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 November 2018.
All research outputs
#15,011,732
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,008
of 4,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,901
of 328,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#30
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 328,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 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 62% of its contemporaries.