↓ Skip to main content

Fibroblasts as a practical alternative to mesenchymal stem cells

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
11 X users
patent
13 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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
Fibroblasts as a practical alternative to mesenchymal stem cells
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12967-018-1536-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas E. Ichim, Pete O’Heeron, Santosh Kesari

Abstract

Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy offers great potential for treatment of disease through the multifunctional and responsive ability of these cells. In numerous contexts, MSC have been shown to reduce inflammation, modulate immune responses, and provide trophic factor support for regeneration. While the most commonly used MSC source, the bone marrow provides relatively little starting material for cellular expansion, and requires invasive extraction means, fibroblasts are easily harvested in large numbers from various biological wastes. Additionally, in vitro expansion of fibroblasts is significantly easier given the robustness of these cells in tissue culture and shorter doubling time compared to typical MSC. In this paper we put forward the concept that in some cases, fibroblasts may be utilized as a more practical, and potentially more effective cell therapy than mesenchymal stem cells. Anti-inflammatory, immune modulatory, and regenerative properties of fibroblasts will be discussed in the context of regenerative medicine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 178 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 22 12%
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 56 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 9%
Engineering 11 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 68 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#923,997
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#190
of 4,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,347
of 344,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#4
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 344,053 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.