↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison of cellular effects of starch-coated SPIONs and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) matrix nanoparticles on human monocytes

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of cellular effects of starch-coated SPIONs and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) matrix nanoparticles on human monocytes
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s106540
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominik Gonnissen, Ying Qu, Klaus Langer, Cengiz Öztürk, Yuliang Zhao, Chunying Chen, Guiscard Seebohm, Martina Düfer, Harald Fuchs, Hans-Joachim Galla, Kristina Riehemann

Abstract

Within the last years, progress has been made in the knowledge of the properties of medically used nanoparticles and their toxic effects, but still, little is known about their influence on cellular processes of immune cells. The aim of our comparative study was to present the influence of two different nanoparticle types on subcellular processes of primary monocytes and the leukemic monocyte cell line MM6. We used core-shell starch-coated superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) and matrix poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticles for our experiments. In addition to typical biocompatibility testing like the detection of necrosis or secretion of interleukins (ILs), we investigated the impact of these nanoparticles on the actin cytoskeleton and the two voltage-gated potassium channels Kv1.3 and Kv7.1. Induction of necrosis was not seen for PLGA nanoparticles and SPIONs in primary monocytes and MM6 cells. Likewise, no alteration in secretion of IL-1β and IL-10 was detected under the same experimental conditions. In contrast, IL-6 secretion was exclusively downregulated in primary monocytes after contact with both nanoparticles. Two-electrode voltage clamp experiments revealed that both nanoparticles reduce currents of the aforementioned potassium channels. The two nanoparticles differed significantly in their impact on the actin cytoskeleton, demonstrated via atomic force microscopy elasticity measurement and phalloidin staining. While SPIONs led to the disruption of the respective cytoskeleton, PLGA did not show any influence in both experimental setups. The difference in the effects on ion channels and the actin cytoskeleton suggests that nanoparticles affect these subcellular components via different pathways. Our data indicate that the alteration of the cytoskeleton and the effect on ion channels are new parameters that describe the influence of nanoparticles on cells. The results are highly relevant for medical application and further evaluation of nanomaterial biosafety.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 33%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 10%
Materials Science 3 10%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,469
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,525
of 332,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#79
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 332,576 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.