| Title |
Cuprous oxide nanoparticles selectively induce apoptosis of tumor cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s31133 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ye Wang, Xiao-Yuan Zi, Juan Su, Hong-Xia Zhang, Xin-Rong Zhang, Hai-Ying Zhu, Jian-Xiu Li, Meng Yin, Feng Yang, Yi-Ping Hu |
| Abstract |
In the rapid development of nanoscience and nanotechnology, many researchers have discovered that metal oxide nanoparticles have very useful pharmacological effects. Cuprous oxide nanoparticles (CONPs) can selectively induce apoptosis and suppress the proliferation of tumor cells, showing great potential as a clinical cancer therapy. Treatment with CONPs caused a G1/G0 cell cycle arrest in tumor cells. Furthermore, CONPs enclosed in vesicles entered, or were taken up by mitochondria, which damaged their membranes, thereby inducing apoptosis. CONPs can also produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) and initiate lipid peroxidation of the liposomal membrane, thereby regulating many signaling pathways and influencing the vital movements of cells. Our results demonstrate that CONPs have selective cytotoxicity towards tumor cells, and indicate that CONPs might be a potential nanomedicine for cancer therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 24% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 14% |
| Chemistry | 10 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 27 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 July 2012.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,469
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,293
of 175,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#51
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 175,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.