↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of intraspinal and intrathecal implantation of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neural precursors for the treatment of spinal cord injury in rats

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Research & Therapy, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Comparison of intraspinal and intrathecal implantation of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neural precursors for the treatment of spinal cord injury in rats
Published in
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13287-015-0255-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takashi Amemori, Jiri Ruzicka, Nataliya Romanyuk, Meena Jhanwar-Uniyal, Eva Sykova, Pavla Jendelova

Abstract

Stem cell treatment provides a promising therapy for patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). However, the applied stem cells exert their effects in different manners that are dependent on the route used for administration. In the present study, we administered neural precursors derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS-NPs) either intraspinally into the lesion center or intrathecally into the subarachnoid space of rats with a balloon-induced spinal cord compression lesion. Functional locomotor performance, cell survival, astrogliosis, axonal sprouting and the expression of endogenous neurotrophic growth factors were evaluated using behavioral tests (BBB, flat beam test, rotarod, plantar test), morphometric analysis, immunohistochemistry and qPCR. Both treatments facilitated the functional locomotor recovery of rats with SCI. iPS-NPs injected intraspinally survived well for 2 months and were positive for MAP2, while cells grafted intrathecally were undetectable at the site of administration or in the spinal cord tissue. Intraspinal implantation increased gray and white matter sparing and axonal sprouting and reduced astrogliosis, while intrathecal application resulted only in an improvement of white matter sparing and an increase in axonal sprouting, in parallel with no positive effect on the expression of endogenous neurotrophic growth factor genes or glial scar reduction. Intrathecally grafted iPS-NPs had a moderate therapeutic benefit on SCI through a paracrine mechanism that does not require the cells to be present in the tissue; however, the extended survival of i.s. grafted cells in the spinal cord may promote long-term spinal cord tissue regeneration.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 18 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 6%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 December 2015.
All research outputs
#3,549,080
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#307
of 2,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,024
of 390,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#14
of 48 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 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 390,618 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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 70% of its contemporaries.