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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Promotion of the transdermal delivery of protein drugs by N-trimethyl chitosan nanoparticles combined with polypropylene electret
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s109552 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ye Tu, Xinxia Wang, Ying Lu, He Zhang, Yuan Yu, Yan Chen, Junjie Liu, Zhiguo Sun, Lili Cui, Jing Gao, Yanqiang Zhong |
| Abstract |
We recently reported that electret, which was prepared by a corona charging system with polypropylene film, could enhance the transdermal delivery of several drugs of low molecular weight. The aim of this study was to investigate whether electret could enhance the transdermal delivery of protein drugs by N-trimethyl chitosan nanoparticles (TMC NPs) prepared by an ionic gelation method. A series of experiments were performed, including in vitro skin permeation assays and anti-inflammatory effects, to evaluate the transdermal delivery of protein drugs by TMC NPs in the presence of electret. The results showed that in the presence of electret, the transdermal delivery of protein drugs in TMC NPs was significantly enhanced, as demonstrated by in vitro permeation studies and confocal laser scanning microscopy. Notably, superoxide dismutase-loaded TMC NPs combined with electret exhibited the best inhibitory effect on the edema of the mouse ear. TMC NPs combined with electret represent a novel platform for the transdermal delivery of protein drugs. |
X Demographics
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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 33% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 13% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 21% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
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 26 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
#216,521
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.