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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Urine is a novel source of autologous mesenchymal stem cells for patients with epidermolysis bullosa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-015-1686-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Markus Schosserer, Rita Reynoso, Verena Wally, Bogdan Jug, Viktoria Kantner, Sylvia Weilner, Ivana Buric, Johannes Grillari, Johann W. Bauer, Regina Grillari-Voglauer |
| Abstract |
Regenerative medicine is strictly dependent on stem cells as a source for a high diversity of somatic cells. However, the isolation of such from individuals suffering from severe genetic skin blistering diseases like epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is often associated with further organ damage. Stem cells were isolated from 112 urine samples from 21 different healthy donors, as well as from 33 urine samples from 25 donors with EB. The cultivation of these cells was optimized by testing different media formulations and pre-coating of culture vessels with collagen. The identity of cells was confirmed by testing marker expression, differentiation potential and immune-modulatory properties. We provide here an optimized protocol for the reproducible isolation of mesenchymal stem cells from urine, even from small volumes as obtained from patients with EB. Furthermore, we offer a basic characterization of those urine-derived stem cells (USCs) from healthy donors, as well as from patients with EB, and demonstrate their potential to differentiate into chondrocytes, osteoblasts and adipocytes, as well as their immune-modulatory properties. Thus, USCs provide a novel and non-invasive source of stem cells, which might be applied for gene-therapeutic approaches to improve medical conditions of patients with EB. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 17% |
| Researcher | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 16 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 01 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,328,106
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#298
of 4,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,443
of 388,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#9
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 388,829 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 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 93% of its contemporaries.