| Title |
Vascularization mediated by mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow and adipose tissue: a comparison
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cell Regeneration, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13619-015-0025-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karoline Pill, Sandra Hofmann, Heinz Redl, Wolfgang Holnthoner |
| Abstract |
Tissue-engineered constructs are promising to overcome shortage of organ donors and to reconstruct at least parts of injured or diseased tissues or organs. However, oxygen and nutrient supply are limiting factors in many tissues, especially after implantation into the host. Therefore, the development of a vascular system prior to implantation appears crucial. To develop a functional vascular system, different cell types that interact with each other need to be co-cultured to simulate a physiological environment in vitro. This review provides an overview and a comparison of the current knowledge of co-cultures of human endothelial cells (ECs) with human adipose tissue-derived stem/stromal cells (ASCs) or bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) in three dimensional (3D) hydrogel matrices. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), BMSCs or ASCs, have been shown to enhance vascular tube formation of ECs and to provide a stabilizing function in addition to growth factor delivery and permeability control for ECs. Although phenotypically similar, MSCs from different tissues promote tubulogenesis through distinct mechanisms. In this report, we describe differences and similarities regarding molecular interactions in order to investigate which of these two cell types displays more favorable characteristics to be used in clinical applications. Our comparative study shows that ASCs as well as BMSCs are both promising cell types to induce vascularization with ECs in vitro and consequently are promising candidates to support in vivo vascularization. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 71% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 43% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 170 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 41 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 14% |
| Researcher | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 11% |
| Unknown | 24 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 20% |
| Engineering | 32 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 14% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 10% |
| Unknown | 33 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 March 2016.
All research outputs
#8,533,995
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Cell Regeneration
#53
of 189 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,167
of 294,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell Regeneration
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 189 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 294,821 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.