↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Carbon nanotubes gathered onto silica particles lose their biomimetic properties with the cytoskeleton becoming biocompatible

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Carbon nanotubes gathered onto silica particles lose their biomimetic properties with the cytoskeleton becoming biocompatible
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s141794
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena González-Domínguez, Nerea Iturrioz-Rodríguez, Esperanza Padín-González, Juan Villegas, Lorena García-Hevia, Moisés Pérez-Lorenzo, Wolfgang Parak, Miguel Correa-Duarte, Monica Fanarraga

Abstract

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are likely to transform the therapeutic and diagnostic fields in biomedicine during the coming years. However, the fragmented vision of their side effects and toxicity in humans has proscribed their use as nanomedicines. Most studies agree that biocompatibility depends on the state of aggregation/dispersion of CNTs under physiological conditions, but conclusions are confusing so far. This study designs an experimental setup to investigate the cytotoxic effect of individualized multiwalled CNTs compared to that of identical nanotubes assembled on submicrometric structures. Our results demonstrate how CNT cytotoxicity is directly dependent on the nanotube dispersion at a given dosage. When CNTs are gathered onto silica templates, they do not interfere with cell proliferation or survival becoming highly compatible. These results support the hypothesis that CNT cytotoxicity is due to the biomimetics of these nanomaterials with the intracellular nanofilaments. These findings provide major clues for the development of innocuous CNT-containing nanodevices and nanomedicines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 %
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 8 27%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Unspecified 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 5 17%

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 29 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,376,559
of 11,843,218 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,353
of 2,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,913
of 270,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#33
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,843,218 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 2,323 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 270,682 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 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.