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 |
Comparison of biological characteristics of mesenchymal stem cells derived from maternal-origin placenta and Wharton’s jelly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13287-015-0219-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gecai Chen, Aihuan Yue, Zhongbao Ruan, Yigang Yin, Ruzhu Wang, Yin Ren, Li Zhu |
| Abstract |
Although mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from different sources share many similar characteristics, they also exhibit individual properties. In this study, we compared MSCs derived from Wharton's jelly in the umbilical cord with those derived from the decidual basalis in the maternal part of the placenta to better understand the similarities and differences between these two cell types. The morphology, immunophenotype (as assessed using flow cytometry), and multi-lineage differentiation potential were analyzed. Karyotype analysis was carried out to determine the origin of the MSCs. Growth kinetics were evaluated using analysis of the population doubling time and cell cycle. Immunosuppressive function was analyzed using mixed lymphocyte culture. MSCs from Wharton's jelly and the decidua basalis exhibited similar morphology, immunophenotype, and differentiation potential to osteogenesis and adipogenesis. The percentage of MSCs in the G0/G1 phase was higher in the case of Wharton's jelly than in the case of the decidua basalis (P < 0.05). Decidual MSCs displayed more remarkable immunosuppressive effects on phytohemagglutinin-stimulated T-cell proliferation (P < 0.05). MSCs from both sources had similar basic biological properties, but decidual MSCs had slower proliferation and stronger immunosuppressive function. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 61 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 24% |
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 28 September 2022.
All research outputs
#4,676,206
of 23,426,104 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#472
of 2,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,425
of 389,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#16
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,426,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 389,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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 71% of its contemporaries.