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 |
Suction assisted liposuction does not impair the regenerative potential of adipose derived stem cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-016-0881-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dominik Duscher, Anna Luan, Robert C. Rennert, David Atashroo, Zeshaan N. Maan, Elizabeth A. Brett, Alexander J. Whittam, Natalie Ho, Michelle Lin, Michael S. Hu, Graham G. Walmsley, Raphael Wenny, Manfred Schmidt, Arndt F. Schilling, Hans-Günther Machens, Georg M. Huemer, Derrick C. Wan, Michael T. Longaker, Geoffrey C. Gurtner |
| Abstract |
Adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) have been identified as a population of multipotent cells with promising applications in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. ASCs are abundant in fat tissue, which can be safely harvested through the minimally invasive procedure of liposuction. However, there exist a variety of different harvesting methods, with unclear impact on ASC regenerative potential. The aim of this study was thus to compare the functionality of ASCs derived from the common technique of suction-assisted lipoaspiration (SAL) versus resection. Human adipose tissue was obtained from paired abdominoplasty and SAL samples from three female donors, and was processed to isolate the stromal vascular fraction. Fluorescence-activated cell sorting was used to determine ASC yield, and cell viability was assayed. Adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation capacity were assessed in vitro using phenotypic staining and quantification of gene expression. Finally, ASCs were applied in an in vivo model of tissue repair to evaluate their regenerative potential. SAL specimens provided significantly fewer ASCs when compared to excised fat tissue, however, with equivalent viability. SAL-derived ASCs demonstrated greater expression of the adipogenic markers FABP-4 and LPL, although this did not result in a difference in adipogenic differentiation. There were no differences detected in osteogenic differentiation capacity as measured by alkaline phosphatase, mineralization or osteogenic gene expression. Both SAL- and resection-derived ASCs enhanced significantly cutaneous healing and vascularization in vivo, with no significant difference between the two groups. SAL provides viable ASCs with full capacity for multi-lineage differentiation and tissue regeneration, and is an effective method of obtaining ASCs for cell-based therapies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 49 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 15 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Energy | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 17 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 08 December 2020.
All research outputs
#5,518,302
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#845
of 4,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,946
of 298,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#16
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 298,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.