| Title |
Hyaluronic acid reagent functional chitosan-PEI conjugate with AQP2-siRNA suppressed endometriotic lesion formation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s99692 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meng-Dan Zhao, Jin-Lin Cheng, Jing-Jing Yan, Feng-Ying Chen, Jian-Zhong Sheng, Dong-Li Sun, Jian Chen, Jing Miao, Run-Ju Zhang, Cai-Hong Zheng, He-Feng Huang |
| Abstract |
To identify a new drug candidate for treating endometriosis which has fewer side effects, a new polymeric nanoparticle gene delivery system consisting of polyethylenimine-grafted chitosan oligosaccharide (CSO-PEI) with hyaluronic acid (HA) and small interfering RNA (siRNA) was designed. There was no obvious difference in sizes observed between (CSO-PEI/siRNA)HA and CSO-PEI/siRNA, but the fluorescence accumulation in the endometriotic lesion was more significant for (CSO-PEI/siRNA)HA compared with CSO-PEI/siRNA due to the specific binding of HA to CD44. In addition, the (CSO-PEI/siRNA)HA nanoparticle gene therapy significantly decreased the endometriotic lesion sizes with atrophy and degeneration of the ectopic endometrium. The epithelial cells of ectopic endometrium from rat models of endometriosis showed a significantly lower CD44 expression than control after treatment with (CSO-PEI/siRNA)HA. Furthermore, observation under an electron microscope showed no obvious toxic effect on the reproductive organs. Therefore, (CSO-PEI/siRNA)HA gene delivery system can be used as an effective method for the treatment of endometriosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 10% |
| Chemical Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
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 29 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,879,822
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,779
of 4,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,071
of 313,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#42
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,077 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 313,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.