| Title |
Self-assembled peptide nanomaterials for biomedical applications: promises and pitfalls
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s117501 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Linlin Sun, Chunli Zheng, Thomas J Webster |
| Abstract |
Over the last several decades, a great number of advances have been made in the area of self-assembled supramolecules for regenerative medicine. Such advances have involved the design, preparation, and characterization of brand new self-assembled peptide nanomaterials for a variety of applications. Among all biomolecules considered for self-assembly applications, peptides have attracted a great deal of attention as building blocks for bottom-up fabrication, due to their versatility, ease of manufacturing, low costs, tunable structures, and versatile properties. Herein, some of the more exciting new designs of self-assembled peptides and their associated unique features are reviewed and several promising applications of how self-assembled peptides are advancing drug delivery, tissue engineering, antibacterial therapy, and biosensor device applications are highlighted. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 176 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 20% |
| Researcher | 25 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 11% |
| Unknown | 50 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 27 | 15% |
| Chemistry | 25 | 14% |
| Engineering | 15 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 14% |
| Unknown | 61 | 35% |
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 03 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,879,822
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,779
of 4,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,562
of 417,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#39
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,077 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 417,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.