↓ Skip to main content

Peripheral blood mononuclear cell secretome for tissue repair

Overview of attention for article published in Apoptosis, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 tweeter


17 Dimensions

Readers on

66 Mendeley
Peripheral blood mononuclear cell secretome for tissue repair
Published in
Apoptosis, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10495-016-1292-8
Pubmed ID

Lucian Beer, Michael Mildner, Mariann Gyöngyösi, Hendrik Jan Ankersmit


For almost two decades, cell-based therapies have been tested in modern regenerative medicine to either replace or regenerate human cells, tissues, or organs and restore normal function. Secreted paracrine factors are increasingly accepted to exert beneficial biological effects that promote tissue regeneration. These factors are called the cell secretome and include a variety of proteins, lipids, microRNAs, and extracellular vesicles, such as exosomes and microparticles. The stem cell secretome has most commonly been investigated in pre-clinical settings. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that other cell types, such as peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), are capable of releasing significant amounts of biologically active paracrine factors that exert beneficial regenerative effects. The apoptotic PBMC secretome has been successfully used pre-clinically for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction, chronic heart failure, spinal cord injury, stroke, and wound healing. In this review we describe the benefits of choosing PBMCs instead of stem cells in regenerative medicine and characterize the factors released from apoptotic PBMCs. We also discuss pre-clinical studies with apoptotic cell-based therapies and regulatory issues that have to be considered when conducting clinical trials using cell secretome-based products. This should allow the reader to envision PBMC secretome-based therapies as alternatives to all other forms of cell-based therapies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 27%
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Unspecified 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 32%
Unspecified 13 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 17%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 6 9%

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 19 October 2016.
All research outputs
of 12,321,253 outputs
Outputs from Apoptosis
of 578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 265,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Apoptosis
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,321,253 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 578 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 265,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 68% of its contemporaries.