↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Co-presentation of Adhesive Ligands and Short Hyaluronan on Lymphendothelial Cells

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Effect of Co-presentation of Adhesive Ligands and Short Hyaluronan on Lymphendothelial Cells
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00025
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christiane H. Antoni, Yvonne McDuffie, Jochen Bauer, Jonathan P. Sleeman, Heike Boehm

Abstract

Controlled activation of lymphangiogenesis through functional biomaterials represents a promising approach to support wound healing after surgical procedures, yet remains a challenge. In a synthetic biological approach, we therefore set out to mimic the basal microenvironment of human primary dermal lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs) during lymphangiogenesis. As the extracellular matrix component hyaluronan (HA) regulates lymphangiogenesis, we designed a bifunctional surface in which adhesive peptide ligands and short HA oligosaccharides (sHA) tethered to nanoparticles are copresented to the basal side of LECs in a controlled, concentration-dependent manner. Exposure of LECs to sHA in solution to mimic luminal stimulation of the cells did not result in modified metabolic activity. However, LECs grown on the bifunctional adhesive surfaces showed a biphasic change in metabolic activity, with increased metabolic activity being observed in response to increasing nanoparticle densities up to a maximum of 540 particles/μm2. Thus, interfaces that concomitantly present adhesive ligands and sHA can stimulate LEC metabolism and might be able to trigger lymphangiogenesis.

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 2 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 38%
Other 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 2 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 13%
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 25 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,591,506
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#3,442
of 6,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,517
of 331,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#36
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,720 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 331,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.