| Title |
Silver nanoparticles outperform gold nanoparticles in radiosensitizing U251 cells in vitro and in an intracranial mouse model of glioma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s115473 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peidang Liu, Haizhen Jin, Zhirui Guo, Jun Ma, Jing Zhao, Dongdong Li, Hao Wu, Ning Gu |
| Abstract |
Radiotherapy performs an important function in the treatment of cancer, but resistance of tumor cells to radiation still remains a serious concern. More research on more effective radiosensitizers is urgently needed to overcome such resistance and thereby improve the treatment outcome. The goal of this study was to evaluate and compare the radiosensitizing efficacies of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) and silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) on glioma at clinically relevant megavoltage energies. Both AuNPs and AgNPs potentiated the in vitro and in vivo antiglioma effects of radiation. AgNPs showed more powerful radiosensitizing ability than AuNPs at the same mass and molar concentrations, leading to a higher rate of apoptotic cell death. Furthermore, the combination of AgNPs with radiation significantly increased the levels of autophagy as compared with AuNPs plus radiation. These findings suggest the potential application of AgNPs as a highly effective nano-radiosensitizer for the treatment of glioma. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 115 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 38 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 9 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 18% |
| Unknown | 48 | 41% |
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 04 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,470
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,525
of 332,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#79
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 332,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.