| 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 J Parak, Miguel A Correa-Duarte, Mónica L 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. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
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
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,470
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,586
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#53
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 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 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.