↓ Skip to main content

Engineering and Application of Pluripotent Stem Cells

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 22: Acquired Genetic and Epigenetic Variation in Human Pluripotent Stem Cells
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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.
Chapter title
Acquired Genetic and Epigenetic Variation in Human Pluripotent Stem Cells
Chapter number 22
Book title
Engineering and Application of Pluripotent Stem Cells
Published in
Advances in biochemical engineering biotechnology, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/10_2017_22
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-973590-0, 978-3-31-973591-7
Authors

O. Kyriakides, J. A. Halliwell, P. W. Andrews, Kyriakides, O., Halliwell, J.A., Andrews, P.W.

Abstract

Human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) can acquire non-random genomic variation during culture. Some of these changes are common in tumours and confer a selective growth advantage in culture. Additionally, there is evidence that reprogramming of human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) introduces mutations. This poses a challenge to both the safety of clinical applications and the reliability of basic research using hPSCs carrying genomic variation. A number of methods are available for monitoring the genomic integrity of hPSCs, and a balance between practicality and sensitivity must be considered in choosing the appropriate methods for each use of hPSCs. Adjusting protocols by which hPSCs are derived and cultured is an evolving process that is important in minimising acquired genomic variation. Assessing genetic variation for its potential impact is becoming increasingly important as techniques to detect genome-wide variation improve.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 13 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 31%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Unknown 14 54%
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 26 June 2021.
All research outputs
#20,451,228
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Advances in biochemical engineering biotechnology
#181
of 225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,177
of 421,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in biochemical engineering biotechnology
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 421,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.