↓ Skip to main content

Could nanoparticle corona characterization help for biological consequence prediction?

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Nanotechnology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
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.
Title
Could nanoparticle corona characterization help for biological consequence prediction?
Published in
Cancer Nanotechnology, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12645-014-0007-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emilie Brun, Cécile Sicard – Roselli

Abstract

As soon as they enter a biological medium (cell culture medium for in vitro, blood or plasma for in vivo studies), nanoparticles, in most cases, see their surface covered by biomolecules, especially proteins. What the cells see is thus not the ideal nanoparticle concocted by chemists, meaning the biomolecular corona could have great biological and physiological repercussions, sometimes masking the expected effects of purposely grafted molecules. In this review, we will mainly focus on gold nanoparticles. In the first part, we will discuss the fate of these particles once in a biological medium, especially in terms of size, and the protein composition of the corona. We will highlight the parameters influencing the quantity and the identity of the adsorbed proteins. In a second part, we will resume the main findings about the influence of a biomolecular corona on cellular uptake, toxicity, biodistribution and targeting ability. To be noticed is the need for standardized experiments and very precise reports of the protocols and methods used in the experimental sections to extract informative data. Given the biological consequences of this corona, we suggest that it should be taken into account in theoretical studies dealing with nanomaterials to better represent the biological environment.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 106 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 32%
Researcher 21 19%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 22%
Chemistry 17 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 9%
Physics and Astronomy 7 6%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 19 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 March 2015.
All research outputs
#14,218,430
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Nanotechnology
#66
of 160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,198
of 253,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Nanotechnology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 160 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 253,637 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them