↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Effects of carbon nanofiber on physiology of Drosophila

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Effects of carbon nanofiber on physiology of Drosophila
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s82637
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyung-Jin Min, Shin-Hae Lee, Hye-Yeon Lee, Eun-Ji Lee, Dongwoo Khang

Abstract

As nanomaterials are now widely utilized in a wide range of fields for both medical and industrial applications, concerns over their potential toxicity to human health and the environment have increased. To evaluate the toxicity of long-term exposure to carbon nanofibers (CNFs) in an in vivo system, we selected Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism. Oral administration of CNFs at a concentration of 1,000 μg/mL had adverse effects on fly physiology. Long-term administration of a high dose of CNFs (1,000 μg/mL) reduced larval viability based on the pupa:egg ratio, adult fly lifespan, reproductive activity, climbing activity, and survival rate in response to starvation stress. However, CNFs at a low concentration (100 μg/mL) did not show any significant deleterious effect on developmental rate or fecundity. Furthermore, long-term administration of a low dose of CNFs (100 μg/mL) increased lifespan and climbing ability, coincident with mild reactive oxygen species generation and stimulation of the antioxidant system. Taken together, our data suggest that a high dose of CNFs has obvious physiological toxicity, whereas low-dose chronic exposure to CNFs can actually have beneficial effects via stimulation of the antioxidant defense system.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Student > Master 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 15%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,516,625
of 8,342,643 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#299
of 1,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,811
of 221,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#8
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,342,643 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 57th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,827 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 221,164 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.