↓ Skip to main content

Consistent apparent Young’s modulus of human embryonic stem cells and derived cell types stabilized by substrate stiffness regulation promotes lineage specificity maintenance

Overview of attention for article published in Cell Regeneration, September 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 157)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Consistent apparent Young’s modulus of human embryonic stem cells and derived cell types stabilized by substrate stiffness regulation promotes lineage specificity maintenance
Published in
Cell Regeneration, September 2020
DOI 10.1186/s13619-020-00054-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anqi Guo, Bingjie Wang, Cheng Lyu, Wenjing Li, Yaozu Wu, Lu Zhu, Ran Bi, Chenyu Huang, Jiao Jiao Li, Yanan Du

Abstract

Apparent Young's modulus (AYM), which reflects the fundamental mechanical property of live cells measured by atomic force microscopy and is determined by substrate stiffness regulated cytoskeletal organization, has been investigated as potential indicators of cell fate in specific cell types. However, applying biophysical cues, such as modulating the substrate stiffness, to regulate AYM and thereby reflect and/or control stem cell lineage specificity for downstream applications, remains a primary challenge during in vitro stem cell expansion. Moreover, substrate stiffness could modulate cell heterogeneity in the single-cell stage and contribute to cell fate regulation, yet the indicative link between AYM and cell fate determination during in vitro dynamic cell expansion (from single-cell stage to multi-cell stage) has not been established. Here, we show that the AYM of cells changed dynamically during passaging and proliferation on substrates with different stiffness. Moreover, the same change in substrate stiffness caused different patterns of AYM change in epithelial and mesenchymal cell types. Embryonic stem cells and their derived progenitor cells exhibited distinguishing AYM changes in response to different substrate stiffness that had significant effects on their maintenance of pluripotency and/or lineage-specific characteristics. On substrates that were too rigid or too soft, fluctuations in AYM occurred during cell passaging and proliferation that led to a loss in lineage specificity. On a substrate with 'optimal' stiffness (i.e., 3.5 kPa), the AYM was maintained at a constant level that was consistent with the parental cells during passaging and proliferation and led to preservation of lineage specificity. The effects of substrate stiffness on AYM and downstream cell fate were correlated with intracellular cytoskeletal organization and nuclear/cytoplasmic localization of YAP. In summary, this study suggests that optimal substrate stiffness regulated consistent AYM during passaging and proliferation reflects and contributes to hESCs and their derived progenitor cells lineage specificity maintenance, through the underlying mechanistic pathways of stiffness-induced cytoskeletal organization and the downstream YAP signaling. These findings highlighted the potential of AYM as an indicator to select suitable substrate stiffness for stem cell specificity maintenance during in vitro expansion for regenerative applications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 30%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Engineering 2 7%
Materials Science 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 December 2020.
All research outputs
#13,455,468
of 23,234,261 outputs
Outputs from Cell Regeneration
#50
of 157 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,697
of 399,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell Regeneration
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,234,261 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 157 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 399,642 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them