| Title |
Effects of surface charges of gold nanoclusters on long-term in vivo biodistribution, toxicity, and cancer radiation therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s106073 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jun-Ying Wang, Jie Chen, Jiang Yang, Hao Wang, Xiu Shen, Yuan-Ming Sun, Meili Guo, Xiao-Dong Zhang |
| Abstract |
Gold nanoclusters (Au NCs) have exhibited great advantages in medical diagnostics and therapies due to their efficient renal clearance and high tumor uptake. The in vivo effects of the surface chemistry of Au NCs are important for the development of both nanobiological interfaces and potential clinical contrast reagents, but these properties are yet to be fully investigated. In this study, we prepared glutathione-protected Au NCs of a similar hydrodynamic size but with three different surface charges: positive, negative, and neutral. Their in vivo biodistribution, excretion, and toxicity were investigated over a 90-day period, and tumor uptake and potential application to radiation therapy were also evaluated. The results showed that the surface charge greatly influenced pharmacokinetics, particularly renal excretion and accumulation in kidney, liver, spleen, and testis. Negatively charged Au NCs displayed lower excretion and increased tumor uptake, indicating a potential for NC-based therapeutics, whereas positively charged clusters caused transient side effects on the peripheral blood system. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 31% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 16 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Materials Science | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 18 | 31% |
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 27 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,740,505
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,774
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,241
of 367,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#54
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 367,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.