The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Diamond, graphite, and graphene oxide nanoparticles decrease migration and invasiveness in glioblastoma cell lines by impairing extracellular adhesion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s146193 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mateusz Wierzbicki, Sławomir Jaworski, Marta Kutwin, Marta Grodzik, Barbara Strojny, Natalia Kurantowicz, Krzysztof Zdunek, Rafał Chodun, André Chwalibog, Ewa Sawosz |
| Abstract |
The highly invasive nature of glioblastoma is one of the most significant problems regarding the treatment of this tumor. Diamond nanoparticles (ND), graphite nanoparticles (NG), and graphene oxide nanoplatelets (nGO) have been explored for their biomedical applications, especially for drug delivery. The objective of this research was to assess changes in the adhesion, migration, and invasiveness of two glioblastoma cell lines, U87 and U118, after ND, NG, and nGO treatment. All treatments affected the cell surface structure, adhesion-dependent EGFR/AKT/mTOR, and β-catenin signaling pathways, decreasing the migration and invasiveness of both glioblastoma cell lines. The examined nanoparticles did not show strong toxicity but effectively deregulated cell migration. ND was effectively taken up by cells, whereas nGO and NG strongly interacted with the cell surface. These results indicate that nanoparticles could be used in biomedical applications as a low toxicity active compound for glioblastoma treatment. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 50% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 13% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 13% |
| Materials Science | 5 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,340,334
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#643
of 4,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,885
of 331,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#10
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,077 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 331,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.