↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Degradable gene delivery systems based on Pluronics-modified low-molecular-weight polyethylenimine: preparation, characterization, intracellular trafficking, and cellular distribution

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Degradable gene delivery systems based on Pluronics-modified low-molecular-weight polyethylenimine: preparation, characterization, intracellular trafficking, and cellular distribution
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, February 2012
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s27117
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shen Gao, Fan, Wu, Ding, Shen Gao

Abstract

Cationic copolymers consisting of polycations linked to nonionic amphiphilic block polymers have been evaluated as nonviral gene delivery systems, and a large number of different polymers and copolymers of linear, branched, and dendrimeric architectures have been tested in terms of their suitability and efficacy for in vitro and in vivo transfection. However, the discovery of new potent materials still largely relies on empiric approaches rather than a rational design. The authors investigated the relationship between the polymers' structures and their biological performance, including DNA compaction, toxicity, transfection efficiency, and the effect of cellular uptake.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 29%
Researcher 8 26%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 19%
Chemistry 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 13%
Engineering 3 10%
Chemical Engineering 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 6 19%

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 13 March 2012.
All research outputs
#7,803,548
of 12,438,331 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,429
of 2,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,385
of 120,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#36
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,438,331 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,456 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 120,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.