You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cu-doped TiO2 nanoparticles improve local antitumor immune activation and optimize dendritic cell vaccine strategies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nanobiotechnology, March 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12951-023-01844-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Evelien Hesemans, Neshat Saffarzadeh, Christy Maksoudian, Mukaddes Izci, Tianjiao Chu, Carla Rios Luci, Yuqing Wang, Hendrik Naatz, Sebastian Thieme, Cornelia Richter, Bella B. Manshian, Suman Pokhrel, Lutz Mädler, Stefaan J. Soenen |
| Abstract |
Nanoparticle-mediated cancer immunotherapy holds great promise, but more efforts are needed to obtain nanoformulations that result in a full scale activation of innate and adaptive immune components that specifically target the tumors. We generated a series of copper-doped TiO2 nanoparticles in order to tune the kinetics and full extent of Cu2+ ion release from the remnant TiO2 nanocrystals. Fine-tuning nanoparticle properties resulted in a formulation of 33% Cu-doped TiO2 which enabled short-lived hyperactivation of dendritic cells and hereby promoted immunotherapy. The nanoparticles result in highly efficient activation of dendritic cells ex vivo, which upon transplantation in tumor bearing mice, exceeded the therapeutic outcomes obtained with classically stimulated dendritic cells. Efficacious but simple nanomaterials that can promote dendritic cancer cell vaccination strategies open up new avenues for improved immunotherapy and human health. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 57% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
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 14 March 2023.
All research outputs
#18,311,819
of 23,532,144 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#829
of 1,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,811
of 344,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#27
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,532,144 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,530 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 344,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 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 56% of its contemporaries.