↓ Skip to main content

Transplantation of Human Adipose Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Non-Immunosuppressed GRMD Dogs is a Safe Procedure

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Reviews, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Transplantation of Human Adipose Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Non-Immunosuppressed GRMD Dogs is a Safe Procedure
Published in
Stem Cell Reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12015-016-9659-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. V. Pelatti, J. P. A. Gomes, N. M. S. Vieira, E. Cangussu, V. Landini, T. Andrade, M. Sartori, L. Petrus, Mayana Zatz

Abstract

The possibility to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a lethal X-linked disorder, through cell therapy with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) has been widely investigated in different animal models. However, some crucial questions need to be addressed before starting human therapeutic trials, particularly regarding its use for genetic disorders. How safe is the procedure? Are there any side effects following mesenchymal stem cell transplantation? To address these questions for DMD the best model is the golden retriever muscular dystrophy dog (GRMD), which is the closest model to the human condition displaying a much longer lifespan than other models. Here we report the follow-up of 5 GRMD dogs, which were repeatedly transplanted with human adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (hASC), derived from different donors. Xenogeneic cell transplantation, which was done without immunosuppression, was well tolerated in all animals with no apparent long-term adverse effect. In the present study, we show that repeated heterologous stem-cell injection is a safe procedure, which is fundamental before starting human clinical trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 27%
Researcher 4 27%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 27%
Unspecified 2 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 August 2016.
All research outputs
#7,513,728
of 13,029,986 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews
#290
of 483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,725
of 262,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,029,986 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 483 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 262,689 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 14 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 71% of its contemporaries.