↓ Skip to main content

Hyaluronic acid affects the in vitro induction effects of Synthetic PAMPS and PDMAAm hydrogels on chondrogenic differentiation of ATDC5 cells, depending on the level of concentration

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Hyaluronic acid affects the in vitro induction effects of Synthetic PAMPS and PDMAAm hydrogels on chondrogenic differentiation of ATDC5 cells, depending on the level of concentration
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-14-56
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katsuhisa Yoshikawa, Nobuto Kitamura, Takayuki Kurokawa, Jian Ping Gong, Yutaka Nohara, Kazunori Yasuda

Abstract

It has been a common belief that articular cartilage tissue cannot regenerate in vivo. Recently, however, we have found that spontaneous hyaline cartilage regeneration can be induced in vivo by implanting a synthetic double-network (DN) hydrogel, which is composed of poly-(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid) (PAMPS) and poly-(N,N'-dimethyl acrylamide) (PDMAAm). However, the mechanism of this phenomenon has not been clarified. Recently, we have found that single-network PAMPS and PDMAAm gels can induce chondrogenic differentiation of ATDC5 cells in vitro even in a maintenance medium. In the in vivo condition, there is a strong possibility that the induction effect of the gel itself is enhanced by some molecules which exist in the joint. We have noticed that the joint fluid naturally contains hyaluronic acid (HA). The purpose of this study is to clarify in vitro effects of supplementation of HA on the differentiation effect of the PAMPS and PDMAAm gels.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 24%
Student > Master 4 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Other 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Materials Science 6 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 19%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 10%
Unspecified 2 10%
Other 3 14%

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 05 February 2013.
All research outputs
#3,488,538
of 4,505,915 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,278
of 1,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,578
of 285,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#120
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,505,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,534 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. 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 285,670 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 132 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.