| Title |
Anti-HIV-1 nanotherapeutics: promises and challenges for the future
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s25871 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Supriya D Mahajan, Ravikumar Aalinkeel, Wing-Cheung Law, Jessica L Reynolds, Bindukumar B Nair, Donald E Sykes, Ken-Tye Yong, Indrajit Roy, Paras N Prasad, Stanley A Schwartz |
| Abstract |
The advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has significantly improved the prognosis for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients, however the adverse side effects associated with prolonged HAART therapy use continue. Although systemic viral load can be undetectable, the virus remains sequestered in anatomically privileged sites within the body. Nanotechnology-based delivery systems are being developed to target the virus within different tissue compartments and are being evaluated for their safety and efficacy. The current review outlines the various nanomaterials that are becoming increasingly used in biomedical applications by virtue of their robustness, safety, multimodality, and multifunctionality. Nanotechnology can revolutionize the field of HIV medicine by not only improving diagnosis, but also by improving delivery of antiretrovirals to targeted regions in the body and by significantly enhancing the efficacy of the currently available antiretroviral medications. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 122 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 14% |
| Researcher | 15 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 34 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 11 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 24 | 19% |
| Unknown | 36 | 29% |
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 21 February 2013.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,088
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,873
of 190,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#44
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 190,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.