↓ Skip to main content

Substrate stiffness effect and chromosome missegregation in hIPS cells

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, December 2015
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 (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Substrate stiffness effect and chromosome missegregation in hIPS cells
Published in
Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12952-015-0042-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suehelay Acevedo-Acevedo, Wendy C. Crone

Abstract

Ensuring genetic stability in pluripotent stem cell (PSC) cultures is essential for the development of successful cell therapies. Although most instances lead to failed experiments and go unreported in the literature, many laboratories have found the emergence of genetic abnormalities in PSCs when cultured in vitro for prolonged amounts of time. These cells are primarily cultured in non-physiological stiff substrates like tissue culture polystyrene (TCPS) which raises the possibility that the cause of these abnormalities may be influenced by substrate mechanics. In order to investigate this, human PSCs were grown on substrates of varying stiffness such as a range of polyacrylamide formulations, TCPS, and borosilicate glass coverslips. These substrates allowed for the testing of a stiffness range from 5kPa to 64GPa. Two human induced PSC (iPSC) lines were analyzed in this study: 19-9-11 iPSCs and 19.7 clone F iPSCs. Centrosome and DNA staining revealed that 19-9-11 iPSCs range from 1-8.5 % abnormal mitoses under the different culture conditions. A range of 4.4-8.1 % abnormal mitoses was found for 19.7 clone F iPSCs. Abnormal cell division was not biased towards one particular substrate. It was confirmed by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test that there was no statistically significant difference between passage numbers, cell lines, or substrates.

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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 43 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 30%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 20%
Engineering 8 18%
Chemistry 4 9%
Materials Science 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 25%
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 21 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,351,847
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine
#65
of 112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,954
of 388,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 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 112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 388,246 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 11 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 54% of its contemporaries.