| Title |
Study of the combined treatment of lung cancer using gene-loaded immunomagnetic albumin nanospheres in vitro and in vivo
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s98519 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hao Zhang, Chen Liang, Xinxin Hou, Ling Wang, Dongsheng Zhang |
| Abstract |
Combination therapy for lung cancer has garnered widespread attention. Radiation therapy, gene therapy, and molecular targeted therapy for lung cancer have certain effects, but the disadvantages of these treatment methods are evident. Combining these methods can decrease their side effects and increase their curative effects. In this study, we constructed a pYr-ads-8-5HRE-cfosp-iNOS-IFNG plasmid (a gene circuit that can express IFNγ), which is a gene circuit, and used that plasmid together with C225 (cetuximab) to prepare gene-loaded immunomagnetic albumin nanospheres (IMANS). Moreover, we investigated the therapeutic effects of gene-loaded IMANS in combination with radiation therapy on human lung cancer in vitro and in vivo. The results showed that this gene circuit was successively constructed and confirmed that the expression of INFγ was increased due to the gene circuit. Gene-loaded IMANS combined with radiation therapy demonstrated improved results in vitro and in vivo. In conclusion, gene-loaded IMANS enhanced the efficacy of combination therapy, solved problems related to gene transfer, and specifically targeted lung cancer cells. |
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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 12% |
| Researcher | 2 | 12% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 18% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 12% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 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 16 March 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,088
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,681
of 312,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#55
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 312,604 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 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.