↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Determination of the spatiotemporal dependence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm viability after treatment with NLC-colistin

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Determination of the spatiotemporal dependence of <em>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</em> biofilm viability after treatment with NLC-colistin
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s138763
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eulalia Sans-Serramitjana, Marta Jorba, José Luis Pedraz, Teresa Vinuesa, Miguel Viñas

Abstract

The emergence of colistin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients, particularly after long-term inhalation treatments, has been recently reported. Nanoen-capsulation may enable preparations to overcome the limitations of conventional pharmaceutical forms. We have determined the time-dependent viability of P. aeruginosa biofilms treated with both free and nanoencapsulated colistin. We also examined the relationship between the optimal anti-biofilm activity of nanostructured lipid carrier (NLC)-colistin and the structural organization of the biofilm itself. The results showed the more rapid killing of P. aeruginosa bacterial biofilms by NLC-colistin than by free colistin. However, the two formulations did not differ in terms of the final percentages of living and dead cells, which were higher in the inner than in the outer layers of the treated biofilms. The effective anti-biofilm activity of NLC-colistin and its faster killing effect recommend further studies of its use over free colistin in the treatment of P. aeruginosa infections in CF patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Materials Science 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 7 23%

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 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#11,763,863
of 15,421,575 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,076
of 2,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,704
of 271,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#30
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,421,575 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,942 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. 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 271,288 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 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.