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 |
The impact of cryopreservation on bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-019-02136-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Soukaina Bahsoun, Karen Coopman, Elizabeth C. Akam |
| Abstract |
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) represent an invaluable asset for the feld of cell therapy. Human Bone marrowderived MSCs (hBM-MSCs) are one of the most commonly used cell types in clinical trials. They are currently being studied and tested for the treatment of a wide range of diseases and conditions. The future availability of MSCs therapies to the public will require a robust and reliable delivery process. Cryopreservation represents the gold standard in cell storage and transportation, but its efect on BM-MSCs is still not well established. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the impact of cryopreservation on BM-MSCs and to attempt to uncover the reasons behind some of the controversial results reported in the literature. Forty-one in vitro studies were analysed, and their results organised according to the cell attributes they assess. It was concluded that cryopreservation does not afect BMMSCs morphology, surface marker expression, diferentiation or proliferation potential. However, mixed results exist regarding the efect on colony forming ability and the efects on viability, attachment and migration, genomic stability and paracrine function are undefned mainly due to the huge variabilities governing the cryopreservation process as a whole and to the lack of standardised assays |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 161 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 11% |
| Unknown | 52 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 42 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 5% |
| Engineering | 7 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 12% |
| Unknown | 61 | 38% |
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 01 December 2019.
All research outputs
#18,836,331
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#3,025
of 4,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#338,933
of 460,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#51
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 460,693 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.