| Title |
Daphnia magna and Xenopus laevis as in vivo models to probe toxicity and uptake of quantum dots functionalized with gH625
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s127226 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emilia Galdiero, Annarita Falanga, Antonietta Siciliano, Valeria Maselli, Marco Guida, Rosa Carotenuto, Margherita Tussellino, Lucia Lombardi, Giovanna Benvenuto, Stefania Galdiero |
| Abstract |
The use of quantum dots (QDs) for nanomedicine is hampered by their potential toxicologic effects and difficulties with delivery into the cell interior. We accomplished an in vivo study exploiting Daphnia magna and Xenopus laevis to evaluate both toxicity and uptake of QDs coated with the membranotropic peptide gH625 derived from the glycoprotein H of herpes simplex virus and widely used for drug delivery studies. We evaluated and compared the effects of QDs and gH625-QDs on the survival, uptake, induction of several responsive pathways and genotoxicity in D. magna, and we found that QDs coating plays a key role. Moreover, studies on X. laevis embryos allowed to better understand their cell/tissue localization and delivery efficacy. X. laevis embryos raised in Frog Embryo Teratogenesis Assay-Xenopus containing QDs or gH625-QDs showed that both nanoparticles localized in the gills, lung and intestine, but they showed different distributions, indicating that the uptake of gH625-QDs was enhanced; the functionalized QDs had a significantly lower toxic effect on embryos' survival and phenotypes. We observed that D. magna and X. laevis are useful in vivo models for toxicity and drug delivery studies. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 13% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 36% |
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 April 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,971
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,994
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#58
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 323,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.