| Title |
Fibronectin in tissue regeneration: timely disassembly of the scaffold is necessary to complete the build
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00018-013-1350-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Josephine M. J. Stoffels, Chao Zhao, Wia Baron |
| Abstract |
Tissue injury initiates extracellular matrix molecule expression, including fibronectin production by local cells and fibronectin leakage from plasma. To benefit tissue regeneration, fibronectin promotes opsonization of tissue debris, migration, proliferation, and contraction of cells involved in the healing process, as well as angiogenesis. When regeneration proceeds, the fibronectin matrix is fully degraded. However, in a diseased environment, fibronectin clearance is often disturbed, allowing structural variants to persist and contribute to disease progression and failure of regeneration. Here, we discuss first how fibronectin helps tissue regeneration, with a focus on normal cutaneous wound healing as an example of complete tissue recovery. Then, we continue to argue that, although the fibronectin matrix generated following cartilage and central nervous system white matter (myelin) injury initially benefits regeneration, fibronectin clearance is incomplete in chronic wounds (skin), osteoarthritis (cartilage), and multiple sclerosis (myelin). Fibronectin fragments or aggregates persist, which impair tissue regeneration. The similarities in fibronectin-mediated mechanisms of frustrated regeneration indicate that complete fibronectin clearance is a prerequisite for recovery in any tissue. Also, they provide common targets for developing therapeutic strategies in regenerative medicine. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 127 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 16% |
| Researcher | 20 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 12% |
| Unknown | 18 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 6% |
| Engineering | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 24 | 19% |
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 20 January 2017.
All research outputs
#16,031,680
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#3,071
of 4,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,281
of 198,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#31
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 198,839 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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.