↓ Skip to main content

Immunoliposome-PCR: a generic ultrasensitive quantitative antigen detection system

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nanobiotechnology, June 2012
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
patent
3 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Immunoliposome-PCR: a generic ultrasensitive quantitative antigen detection system
Published in
Journal of Nanobiotechnology, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1477-3155-10-26
Pubmed ID
Authors

Junkun He, David L Evers, Timothy J O’Leary, Jeffrey T Mason

Abstract

The accurate quantification of antigens at low concentrations over a wide dynamic range is needed for identifying biomarkers associated with disease and detecting protein interactions in high-throughput microarrays used in proteomics. Here we report the development of an ultrasensitive quantitative assay format called immunoliposome polymerase chain reaction (ILPCR) that fulfills these requirements. This method uses a liposome, with reporter DNA encapsulated inside and biotin-labeled polyethylene glycol (PEG) phospholipid conjugates incorporated into the outer surface of the liposome, as a detection reagent. The antigenic target is immobilized in the well of a microplate by a capture antibody and the liposome detection reagent is then coupled to a biotin-labeled second antibody through a NeutrAvidin bridge. The liposome is ruptured to release the reporter DNA, which serves as a surrogate to quantify the protein target using real-time PCR.

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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 31%
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 4 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 15%
Engineering 5 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 6 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 11 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,265,582
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#61
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,016
of 164,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 164,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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