↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

The role of calcifying nanoparticles in biology and medicine

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
The role of calcifying nanoparticles in biology and medicine
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, January 2012
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s28069
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anton Kutikhin, Brusina, Arseniy Yuzhalin

Abstract

Calcifying nanoparticles (CNPs) (nanobacteria, nanobacteria-like particles, nanobes) were discovered over 25 years ago; nevertheless, their nature is still obscure. To date, nobody has been successful in credibly determining whether they are the smallest self-replicating life form on Earth, or whether they represent mineralo-protein complexes without any relation to living organisms. Proponents of both theories have a number of arguments in favor of the validity of their hypotheses. However, after epistemological analysis carried out in this review, all arguments used by proponents of the theory about the physicochemical model of CNP formation may be refuted on the basis of the performed investigations, and therefore published data suggest a biological nature of CNPs. The only obstacle to establish CNPs as living organisms is the absence of a fairly accurately sequenced genome at the present time. Moreover, it is clear that CNPs play an important role in etiopathogenesis of many diseases, and this association is independent from their nature. Consequently, emergence of CNPs in an organism is a pathological, not a physiological, process. The classification and new directions of further investigations devoted to the role of CNPs in biology and medicine are proposed.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Spain 1 3%
Russia 1 3%
Unknown 32 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 28%
Professor 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 4 11%

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 25 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,803,548
of 12,438,331 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,429
of 2,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,107
of 153,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#74
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,438,331 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,456 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 153,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.