| Title |
Visual tracing of diffusion and biodistribution for amphiphilic cationic nanoparticles using photoacoustic imaging after ex vivo intravitreal injections
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s109986 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xu Xu, Zhaokang Xu, Junyi Liu, Zhaoliang Zhang, Hao Chen, Xingyi Li, Shuai Shi |
| Abstract |
To visually trace the diffusion and biodistribution of amphiphilic cation micelles after vitreous injection, various triblock copolymers of monomethoxy poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(ε-caprolactone)-polyethylenimine were synthesized with different structures of hydrophilic and hydrophobic segments, followed by labeling with near-infrared fluorescent dye Cyanine5 or Cyanine7. The micellar size, polydispersity index, and surface charge were measured by dynamic light scattering. The diffusion was monitored using photoacoustic imaging in real time after intravitreal injections. Moreover, the labeled nanoparticle distribution in the posterior segment of the eye was imaged histologically by confocal microscopy. The results showed that the hydrophilic segment increased vitreous diffusion, while a positive charge on the particle surface hindered diffusion. In addition, the particles diffused through the retinal layers and were enriched in the retinal pigment epithelial layer. This work tried to study the diffusion rate via a simple method by using visible images, and then provided basic data for the development of intraocular drug carriers. |
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) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 46% |
| Researcher | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 46% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 23% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
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 05 October 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
#207,200
of 332,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#57
of 111 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 332,555 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 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.