| Title |
Degradability, biocompatibility, and osteogenesis of biocomposite scaffolds containing nano magnesium phosphate and wheat protein both in vitro and in vivo for bone regeneration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s105645 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yan Xia, Panyu Zhou, Fei Wang, Chao Qiu, Panfeng Wang, Yuntong Zhang, Liming Zhao, Shuogui Xu |
| Abstract |
In this study, bioactive scaffold of nano magnesium phosphate (nMP)/wheat protein (WP) composite (MWC) was fabricated. The results revealed that the MWC scaffolds had interconnected not only macropores (sized 400-600 μm) but also micropores (sized 10-20 μm) on the walls of macropores. The MWC scaffolds containing 40 w% nMP had an appropriate degradability in phosphate-buffered saline and produced a weak alkaline microenvironment. In cell culture experiments, the results revealed that the MWC scaffolds significantly promoted the MC3T3-E1 cell proliferation, differentiation, and growth into the scaffolds. The results of synchrotron radiation microcomputed tomography and analysis of the histological sections of the in vivo implantation revealed that the MWC scaffolds evidently improved the new bone formation and bone defects repair as compared with WP scaffolds. Moreover, it was found that newly formed bone tissue continued to increase with the gradual reduction of materials residual in the MWC scaffolds. Furthermore, the immunohistochemical analysis further offered the evidence of the stimulatory effects of MWC scaffolds on osteogenic-related cell differentiation and new bone regeneration. The results indicated that MWC scaffolds with good biocompability and degradability could promote osteogenesis in vivo, which would have potential for bone tissue repair. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
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 > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 8 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 12% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,087
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,554
of 367,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#73
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 367,255 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.