| Title |
The comparative immunotoxicity of mesoporous silica nanoparticles and colloidal silica nanoparticles in mice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s39534 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Soyoung Lee, Mi-Sun Kim, Dakeun Lee, Taeg Kyu Kwon, Dongwoo Khang, Hui-Suk Yun, Sang-Hyun Kim |
| Abstract |
Mesoporous silica (MPS) nanoparticles (NPs), which have a unique pore structure and extremely large surface area and pore volume, have received much attention because of their biomedical application potential. Using MPS NPs for biomedical devices requires the verification of their biocompatibility because the surface area of NPs is one of the most important determinants of toxicity, including the cellular uptake and immune response. We have previously reported that the cytotoxicity and inflammation potential of MPS NPs have been shown to be lower than those of general amorphous colloidal silica (Col) NPs in macrophages, but the low cytotoxicity does not guarantee high biocompatibility in vivo. In this study, we compared the in vivo immunotoxicity of MPS and Col NPs in the mouse model to define the effects of pore structural conditions of silica NPs. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 22% |
| Researcher | 16 | 21% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 13 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 24% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 May 2021.
All research outputs
#7,355,930
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#814
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,740
of 288,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#12
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 288,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.