| Title |
A bone-resorption surface-targeting nanoparticle to deliver anti-miR214 for osteoporosis therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s139775 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mingxiang Cai, Li Yang, Shufan Zhang, Jiafan Liu, Yao Sun, Xiaogang Wang |
| Abstract |
With increasing fracture risks due to fragility, osteoporosis is a global health problem threatening postmenopausal women. In these patients, osteoclasts play leading roles in bone loss and fracture. How to inhibit osteoclast activity is the key issue for osteoporosis treatment. In recent years, miRNA-based gene therapy through gene regulation has been considered a potential therapeutic method. However, in light of the side effects, the use of therapeutic miRNAs in osteoporosis treatment is still limited by the lack of tissue/cell-specific delivery systems. Here, we developed polyurethane (PU) nanomicelles modified by the acidic peptide Asp(8). Our data showed that without overt toxicity or eliciting an immune response, this delivery system encapsulated and selectively deliver miRNAs to OSCAR(+) osteoclasts at bone-resorption surface in vivo. With the Asp(8)-PU delivery system, anti-miR214 was delivered to osteoclasts, and bone microarchitecture and bone mass were improved in ovariectomized osteoporosis mice. Therefore, Asp(8)-PU could be a useful bone-resorption surface-targeting delivery system for treatment of osteoclast-induced bone diseases and aging-related osteoporosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 18 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 15% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,087
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,328
of 331,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#45
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 331,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.