↓ Skip to main content

Where is the common ground between bone marrow mesenchymal stem/stromal cells from different donors and species?

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Research & Therapy, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Where is the common ground between bone marrow mesenchymal stem/stromal cells from different donors and species?
Published in
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13287-015-0144-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Jones, Richard Schäfer

Abstract

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) feature promising potential for cellular therapies, yet significant progress in development of MSC therapeutics and assays is hampered because of remarkable MSC heterogeneity in vivo and in vitro. This heterogeneity poses challenges for standardization of MSC characterization and potency assays as well as for MSC study comparability and manufacturing. This review discusses promising marker combinations for prospective MSC subpopulation enrichment and expansion, and reflects MSC phenotype changes due to environment and age. In order to address animal modelling in MSC biology, comparison of mouse and human MSC markers highlights current common ground of MSCs between species.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 91 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 25%
Researcher 22 24%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 23%
Materials Science 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 13 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,345,593
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#1,343
of 2,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,195
of 266,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#25
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,419 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 266,187 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.