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 |
Stimulating effect of graphene oxide on myogenesis of C2C12 myoblasts on RGD peptide-decorated PLGA nanofiber matrices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Biological Engineering, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13036-015-0020-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yong Cheol Shin, Jong Ho Lee, Min Jeong Kim, Suck Won Hong, Bongju Kim, Jung Keun Hyun, Yu Suk Choi, Jong-Chul Park, Dong-Wook Han |
| Abstract |
In the field of biomedical engineering, many studies have focused on the possible applications of graphene and related nanomaterials due to their potential for use as scaffolds, coating materials and delivery carriers. On the other hand, electrospun nanofiber matrices composed of diverse biocompatible polymers have attracted tremendous attention for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. However, their combination is intriguing and still challenging. In the present study, we fabricated nanofiber matrices composed of M13 bacteriophage with RGD peptide displayed on its surface (RGD-M13 phage) and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid, PLGA) and characterized their physicochemical properties. In addition, the effect of graphene oxide (GO) on the cellular behaviors of C2C12 myoblasts, which were cultured on PLGA decorated with RGD-M13 phage (RGD/PLGA) nanofiber matrices, was investigated. Our results revealed that the RGD/PLGA nanofiber matrices have suitable physicochemical properties as a tissue engineering scaffold and the growth of C2C12 myoblasts were significantly enhanced on the matrices. Moreover, the myogenic differentiation of C2C12 myoblasts was substantially stimulated when they were cultured on the RGD/PLGA matrices in the presence of GO. In conclusion, these findings propose that the combination of RGD/PLGA nanofiber matrices and GO can be used as a promising strategy for skeletal tissue engineering and regeneration. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 19 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 11 | 16% |
| Materials Science | 6 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 23 | 33% |
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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,828,686
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biological Engineering
#178
of 260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,790
of 386,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biological Engineering
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 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 260 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 386,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.