| Title |
Cytotoxicity induced by carbon nanotubes in experimental malignant glioma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s139004 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samuel Romano-Feinholz, Alelí Salazar-Ramiro, Emilio Muñoz-Sandoval, Roxana Magaña-Maldonado, Norma Hernández Pedro, Edgar Rangel López, Alberto González Aguilar, Aurora Sánchez García, Julio Sotelo, Verónica Pérez de la Cruz, Benjamín Pineda |
| Abstract |
Despite multiple advances in the diagnosis of brain tumors, there is no effective treatment for glioblastoma. Multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), which were previously used as a diagnostic and drug delivery tool, have now been explored as a possible therapy against neoplasms. However, although the toxicity profile of nanotubes is dependent on the physicochemical characteristics of specific particles, there are no studies exploring how the effectivity of the carbon nanotubes (CNTs) is affected by different methods of production. In this study, we characterize the structure and biocompatibility of four different types of MWCNTs in rat astrocytes and in RG2 glioma cells as well as the induction of cell lysis and possible additive effect of the combination of MWCNTs with temozolomide. We used undoped MWCNTs (labeled simply as MWCNTs) and nitrogen-doped MWCNTs (labeled as N-MWCNTs). The average diameter of both pristine MWCNTs and pristine N-MWCNTs was ~22 and ~35 nm, respectively. In vitro and in vivo results suggested that these CNTs can be used as adjuvant therapy along with the standard treatment to increase the survival of rats implanted with malignant glioma. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 17% |
| Researcher | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 19% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 8% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
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 02 September 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
#287,031
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#86
of 99 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 327,503 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 99 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.