↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Toxicity evaluation of boron nitride nanospheres and water-soluble boron nitride in Caenorhabditis elegans

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Toxicity evaluation of boron nitride nanospheres and water-soluble boron nitride in <em>Caenorhabditis elegans</em>
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s130960
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ning Wang, Hui Wang, Chengchun Tang, Shijun Lei, Wanqing Shen, Cong Wang, Guobin Wang, Zheng Wang, Lin Wang

Abstract

Boron nitride (BN) nanomaterials have been increasingly explored for potential biological applications. However, their toxicity remains poorly understood. Using Caenorhabditis elegans as a whole-animal model for toxicity analysis of two representative types of BN nanomaterials - BN nanospheres (BNNSs) and highly water-soluble BN nanomaterial (named BN-800-2) - we found that BNNSs overall toxicity was less than soluble BN-800-2 with irregular shapes. The concentration thresholds for BNNSs and BN-800-2 were 100 µg·mL(-1) and 10 µg·mL(-1), respectively. Above this concentration, both delayed growth, decreased life span, reduced progeny, retarded locomotion behavior, and changed the expression of phenotype-related genes to various extents. BNNSs and BN-800-2 increased oxidative stress levels in C. elegans by promoting reactive oxygen species production. Our results further showed that oxidative stress response and MAPK signaling-related genes, such as GAS1, SOD2, SOD3, MEK1, and PMK1, might be key factors for reactive oxygen species production and toxic responses to BNNSs and BN-800-2 exposure. Together, our results suggest that when concentrations are lower than 10 µg·mL(-1), BNNSs are more biocompatible than BN-800-2 and are potentially biocompatible material.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 5 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 15%
Environmental Science 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Chemistry 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 10 30%

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 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,707,614
of 12,330,736 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,412
of 2,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,551
of 269,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#28
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,330,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,421 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 269,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.