↓ Skip to main content

Novel Techniques for Ex Vivo Expansion of Cord Blood: Clinical Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Novel Techniques for Ex Vivo Expansion of Cord Blood: Clinical Trials
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2015.00089
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rohtesh S. Mehta, Katayoun Rezvani, Amanda Olson, Betul Oran, Chitra Hosing, Nina Shah, Simrit Parmar, Sue Armitage, Elizabeth J. Shpall

Abstract

Cord blood (CB) provides an excellent alternative source of hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) for patients lacking human leukocyte antigen-matched peripheral blood or bone marrow graft for transplantation. However, due to the limited cell dose in CB graft, it is associated with prolonged time to engraftment, risk of graft rejection, infections, and treatment-related mortality. To increase the cell dose, a variety of ex vivo expansion techniques have been developed. Results of traditional methods of CB expansion using cytokines alone were disappointing. Expanding CB cells with mesenchymal progenitor cells led to sizeable increase in graft content and improved engraftment. Other methods used HPC-differentiation blockers, such as nicotinamide analogs, copper chelators, inducing constitutive Notch signaling, or an aryl hydrocarbon receptor antagonist (StemReginin1). Many of these methods lead to substantial expansions of total nucleated cells and CD34(+) cells, and significantly improved time to neutrophil or platelet engraftment in patients transplanted with the expanded products compared to the recipients of unmanipulated CBT. These studies differ not only in the expansion method but also with regards to the cytokines used, patient population, conditioning regimens, and transplantation practices, to name a few. Some of these methods employed expansion of a portion of CB unit in the setting of single CBT, while others in the setting of double CBT. Here, we review various procedures used for CB expansion and highlight some of the key differences. Novel methods of improving engraftment that aim at improving bone marrow homing potential of CB cells are not reviewed.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

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

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 54 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Engineering 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 December 2015.
All research outputs
#5,424,036
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#1,145
of 5,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,221
of 389,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 389,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.