| Title |
Single-walled carbon nanohorn (SWNH) aggregates inhibited proliferation of human liver cell lines and promoted apoptosis, especially for hepatoma cell lines
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s56353 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jinqian Zhang, Qiang Sun, Jian Bo, Rui Huang, Mengran Zhang, Zhenglin Xia, Lili Ju, Guoan Xiang |
| Abstract |
Single-walled carbon nanohorns (SWNHs) may be useful as carriers for anticancer drugs due to their particular structure. However, the interactions between the material itself and cancerous or normal cells have seldom been studied. To address this problem, the effects of raw SWNH material on the biological functions of human liver cell lines were studied. Our results showed that unmodified SWNHs inhibited mitotic entry, growth, and proliferation of human liver cell lines and promoted their apoptosis, especially in hepatoma cell lines. Individual spherical SWNH particles were found inside the nuclei of human hepatoma HepG2 cells and the lysosomes of normal human liver L02 cells, implying that SWNH particles could penetrate into human liver cells_and the different interacted mechanisms on human normal cell lines compared to hepatoma cell lines. Further research on the mechanisms and application in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with SWNHs is needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 5 | 19% |
| Engineering | 3 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 8% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 May 2015.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,886
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,996
of 322,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#46
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 322,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.