↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Shape-dependent antibacterial effects of non-cytotoxic gold nanoparticles

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
Shape-dependent antibacterial effects of non-cytotoxic gold nanoparticles
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s124442
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jelle Penders, Michelle Stolzoff, Daniel J Hickey, Martin Andersson, Thomas J Webster

Abstract

Gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) of various shapes (including spheres, stars and flowers), with similar dimensions, were synthesized and evaluated for their antibacterial effects toward Staphylococcus aureus, a bacterium responsible for numerous life-threatening infections worldwide. Optical growth curve measurements and Gompertz modeling showed significant AuNP shape- and concentration-dependent decreases in bacterial growth with increases in bacterial growth lag time. To evaluate prospective use in in vivo systems, the cytotoxicity of the same AuNPs was evaluated toward human dermal fibroblasts in vitro by 3-(4,5 dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium (MTS) viability assays and confocal microscopy. No indication of any mammalian cell toxicity or morphological effects was found. Additionally, it was observed that the AuNPs were readily internalized in fibroblasts after 4 days of incubation. Most importantly, the results of the present study showed that gold nanoflowers in particular possessed the most promising non-cytotoxic mammalian cell behavior with the greatest shape-dependent antibacterial activity-promising properties for their future investigation in a wide range of anti-infection applications.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 19%
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 11%
Student > Master 11 11%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 27 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 12 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Engineering 6 6%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 31 32%

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 10 May 2017.
All research outputs
#8,519,002
of 9,792,785 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,785
of 2,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,559
of 264,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#64
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,792,785 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,086 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 264,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.