↓ Skip to main content

Dedifferentiated Chondrocytes in Composite Microfibers As Tool for Cartilage Repair

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dedifferentiated Chondrocytes in Composite Microfibers As Tool for Cartilage Repair
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2017.00035
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Angelozzi, Letizia Penolazzi, Stefania Mazzitelli, Elisabetta Lambertini, Andrea Lolli, Roberta Piva, Claudio Nastruzzi

Abstract

Tissue engineering (TE) approaches using biomaterials have gain important roles in the regeneration of cartilage. This paper describes the production by microfluidics of alginate-based microfibers containing both extracellular matrix (ECM)-derived biomaterials and chondrocytes. As ECM components gelatin or decellularized urinary bladder matrix (UBM) were investigated. The effectiveness of the composite microfibers has been tested to modulate the behavior and redifferentiation of dedifferentiated chondrocytes. The complete redifferentiation, at the single-cell level, of the chondrocytes, without cell aggregate formation, was observed after 14 days of cell culture. Specific chondrogenic markers and high cellular secretory activity was observed in embedded cells. Notably, no sign of collagen type 10 deposition was determined. The obtained data suggest that dedifferentiated chondrocytes regain a functional chondrocyte phenotype when embedded in appropriate 3D scaffold based on alginate plus gelatin or UBM. The proposed scaffolds are indeed valuable to form a cellular microenvironment mimicking the in vivo ECM, opening the way to their use in cartilage TE.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 14 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Engineering 4 11%
Materials Science 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 17 47%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 August 2017.
All research outputs
#15,464,404
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#2,641
of 6,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,353
of 317,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 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 6,694 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 317,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.