| Title |
Synergetic effect of functional cadmium–tellurium quantum dots conjugated with gambogic acid for HepG2 cell-labeling and proliferation inhibition
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s51622 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peipei Xu, Jingyuan Li, Lixin Shi, Matthias Selke, Baoan Chen, Xuemei Wang |
| Abstract |
We prepared and studied novel fluorescent nanocomposites based on gambogic acid (GA) and cadmium-tellurium (CdTe) quantum dots (CdTe QDs) modified with cysteamine for purpose of cancer cell labeling and combined treatment. The nanocomposites were denoted as GA-CdTe. Characterization results indicated that the CdTe QDs can readily bind onto cell plasma membranes and then be internalized into cancer cells for real-time labeling and tracing of human liver hepatocellular carcinoma cell line (HepG2) cells. GA-CdTe significantly enhanced drug accumulation in HepG2 cells and inhibited cancer cell proliferation. GA-CdTe nanocomposites also improved the drug action of GA molecules in HepG2 cells and induced the G2/M phase arrest of the cancer cell cycle, promoting cell apoptosis. Given the sensitive, pH-triggered release of GA-CdTe, the side effects of GA anticancer agents on normal cells/tissues in the blood circulation markedly decreased. Efficient drug release and accumulation in target tumor cells were also facilitated. Thus, the fluorescent GA-CdTe offered a new strategy for potential multimode cancer therapy and provided new channels for research into naturally-active compounds extracted from traditional Chinese medicinal plants. |
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.
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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| China | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 6 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 16% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
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 30 September 2013.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,470
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,088
of 212,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#82
of 104 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 212,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.