↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

A comparison of immunotoxic effects of nanomedicinal products with regulatory immunotoxicity testing requirements

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
A comparison of immunotoxic effects of nanomedicinal products with regulatory immunotoxicity testing requirements
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s102385
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina Giannakou, Margriet Park, Wim de Jong, Henk van Loveren, Rob Vandebriel, Robert Geertsma

Abstract

Nanomaterials (NMs) are attractive for biomedical and pharmaceutical applications because of their unique physicochemical and biological properties. A major application area of NMs is drug delivery. Many nanomedicinal products (NMPs) currently on the market or in clinical trials are most often based on liposomal products or polymer conjugates. NMPs can be designed to target specific tissues, eg, tumors. In virtually all cases, NMPs will eventually reach the immune system. It has been shown that most NMs end up in organs of the mononuclear phagocytic system, notably liver and spleen. Adverse immune effects, including allergy, hypersensitivity, and immunosuppression, have been reported after NMP administration. Interactions of NMPs with the immune system may therefore constitute important side effects. Currently, no regulatory documents are specifically dedicated to evaluate the immunotoxicity of NMs or NMPs. Their immunotoxicity assessment is performed based on existing guidelines for conventional substances or medicinal products. Due to the unique properties of NMPs when compared with conventional medicinal products, it is uncertain whether the currently prescribed set of tests provides sufficient information for an adequate evaluation of potential immunotoxicity of NMPs. The aim of this study was therefore, to compare the current regulatory immunotoxicity testing requirements with the accumulating knowledge on immunotoxic effects of NMPs in order to identify potential gaps in the safety assessment. This comparison showed that immunotoxic effects, such as complement activation-related pseudoallergy, myelosuppression, inflammasome activation, and hypersensitivity, are not readily detected by using current testing guidelines. Immunotoxicity of NMPs would be more accurately evaluated by an expanded testing strategy that is equipped to stratify applicable testing for the various types of NMPs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 24%
Other 7 14%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 12 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,918,448
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#168
of 3,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,430
of 268,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#6
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,178 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 268,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.