| Title |
Acute hematologic, hepatologic, and nephrologic changes after intraperitoneal injections of 18 nm gold nanoparticles in hamsters
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s102919 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hazem Mohamed Saleh, Omar A Soliman, Mohamed Osama Elshazly, Alaa Raafat, Adel K Gohar, Taher A Salaheldin |
| Abstract |
In vivo responses to gold nanoparticles (GNPs) vary not only according to the size, shape, surface charge, and capping agent of GNPs but also according to the animal model, the route of administration, and the exposure frequency and duration. We illustrate here the changes in some hematologic parameters, in the hepatic and renal functions, and in the histopathology of solid organs after multiple intraperitoneal injections of 18 nm GNPs in adult male Syrian golden hamsters. We scored the histopathological changes in the liver and kidneys to grade the deleterious effects. Multiple intraperitoneal injections of 18 nm GNPs in hamsters were nonlethal in the short term but resulted in macrocytosis and hypochromasia, leukocytosis, neutrophilia, lymphocytosis, and monocytosis. The hepatic and renal functions showed nonsignificant changes; however, histopathological examination showed hepatic and renal alterations ranging from mild to marked degeneration, with occasional necrosis of hepatocytes and tubular epithelium. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 24% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,043,267
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,606
of 4,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,691
of 354,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#43
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,142 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 354,169 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 123 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 62% of its contemporaries.