↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

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 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 20%
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 28 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 13 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 6%
Other 25 24%
Unknown 34 32%
Attention Score in Context

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
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#3,598
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,015
of 324,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#79
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. 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 324,443 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 95 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.