| Title |
Impact of single-walled carbon nanotubes on the embryo: a brief review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s96361 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ala-Eddin Al Moustafa, Etienne Mfoumou, Dacian E Roman, Vahe Nerguizian, Anas Alazzam, Ion Stiharu, Amber Yasmeen |
| Abstract |
Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are considered one of the most interesting materials in the 21st century due to their unique physiochemical characteristics and applicability to various industrial products and medical applications. However, in the last few years, questions have been raised regarding the potential toxicity of CNTs to humans and the environment; it is believed that the physiochemical characteristics of these materials are key determinants of CNT interaction with living cells and hence determine their toxicity in humans and other organisms as well as their embryos. Thus, several recent studies, including ours, pointed out that CNTs have cytotoxic effects on human and animal cells, which occur via the alteration of key regulator genes of cell proliferation, apoptosis, survival, cell-cell adhesion, and angiogenesis. Meanwhile, few investigations revealed that CNTs could also be harmful to the normal development of the embryo. In this review, we will discuss the toxic role of single-walled CNTs in the embryo, which was recently explored by several groups including ours. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 6 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 11% |
| Chemical Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 29% |
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 22 January 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,087
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,887
of 399,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#47
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 4,123 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 399,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.