↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Liquid crystal precursor mucoadhesive system as a strategy to improve the prophylactic action of Syngonanthus nitens (Bong.) Ruhland against infection by Candida krusei

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Liquid crystal precursor mucoadhesive system as a strategy to improve the prophylactic action of Syngonanthus nitens (Bong.) Ruhland against infection by Candida krusei
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, December 2015
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s92638
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matheus Aparecido dos Santos Ramos, Giovana Maria Fioramonti Calixto, Luciani Gaspar de Toledo, Bruna Vidal Bonifácio, Lourdes Campaner dos Santos, Margarete Teresa Gottardo de Almeida, Marlus Chorilli, Taís Maria Bauab

Abstract

Vaginal infections caused by Candida krusei are a problem of extreme complexity due to the intrinsic resistance to azole drugs. The species Syngonanthus nitens (Bong.) Ruhland is a plant of the Eriocaulaceae family that has demonstrated promising antifungal activity. In phyto-formulation research, liquid crystal precursor mucoadhesive systems (LCPM) stand out as drug delivery systems for vaginal administration because they increase the activity and overcome the problems associated with plant-based medicines. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the potential of the methanolic extract of scapes of S. nitens (S. nitens extract [SNE]) and an SNE-loaded LCPM against C. krusei as prophylaxis for vulvovaginal candidiasis. LCPM formulation developed consisted of oleic acid as the oil phase (50% w/w), polyoxypropylene (5) polyoxyethylene (20) cetyl alcohol (40% w/w) as the surfactant and a polymeric dispersion containing 2.5% Carbopol(®) 974P and 2.5% polycarbophil (10% w/w) as the aqueous phase. LCPM formulation developed was characterized using polarized light microscopy, rheological analysis, and in vitro mucoadhesive studies. Different strains of C. krusei, including one standard strain (American Type Culture Collection 6258) and three clinically isolated strains from the vaginal region (CKV1, 2, and 3), were used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration, inhibition of biofilms, and time kill. The in vivo prophylaxis assay was performed using the standard strain (American Type Culture Collection 6258). The analyses of F by polarized light microscopy and rheology showed isotropy; however, the addition of 100% artificial vaginal mucus (F100) made it more viscous and anisotropic. Moreover, the mucoadhesive strength was modified, which makes F an excellent formulation for vaginal applications. SNE was active against all strains studied, with minimum inhibitory concentration values ranging from 125 to 62.5 µg/mL; after incorporating SNE into F (FE), these values decreased to 62.5 to 31.2 µg/mL, demonstrating that incorporation into the formulation potentiated the action of SNE. Additionally, the time kill assays showed that both forms of SNE were capable of controlling growth, thereby suggesting a possible fungistatic mechanism. Unloaded SNE was not active against C. krusei biofilms, but FE was active against a clinical strain (CKV2). In vivo analysis showed that FE was able to prevent the development of infection following 10 days of administration. We concluded that the formulation developed in this study was an important vehicle for the delivery of SNE based on the improved antifungal activity in all in vitro and in vivo analyses. Furthermore, the extract incorporated into the system may serve as an important prophylactic agent against vaginal infections caused by C. krusei.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 24 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Chemistry 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 12 21%

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 31 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,814,683
of 8,307,635 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#440
of 1,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,895
of 307,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#36
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,307,635 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,814 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 307,809 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.