| Title |
Targeting delivery of Radix Ophiopogonis polysaccharide to ischemic/reperfused rat myocardium by long-circulating macromolecular and liposomal carriers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s89445 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiao Lin, ChunXia Yao, Fei Wu, Lan Shen, Yi Feng, Lina Wang |
| Abstract |
Drug delivery to ischemic myocardium is an enormous challenge. This work aimed to characterize cardiac delivery behaviors of mono-polyethylene glycosylated (PEGylated) conjugates and long-circulating liposomes (L-Lps) with Radix Ophiopogonis polysaccharide (ROP) as drug. The results showed that compared to native ROP, 32-, 52-, and 45-fold increases in blood half-life were achieved by 20-kDa PEG mono-modified ROP (P20k-R), 40-kDa PEG mono-modified ROP (P40k-R), and ROP-loaded L-Lp, respectively. With comparable blood pharmacokinetics, ROP-loaded L-Lp showed both significantly higher targeting efficacy and drug exposure in infarcted myocardium than P40k-R. With regard to P20k-R, both its targeting efficacy and its level in infarcted myocardium at 3 hours postdose were comparable to P40k-R, but its level in blood and myocardium reduced obviously faster. As a whole, the results indicate that both loading in L-Lps and mono-PEGylation are effective in targeting drug to ischemic myocardium, but the former appears to induce stronger effects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 15% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 23% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
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 24 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,238,195
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,662
of 3,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,152
of 266,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#74
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,816 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 266,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.