↓ Skip to main content

Selective killing of cancer cells by nanoparticle-assisted ultrasound

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Selective killing of cancer cells by nanoparticle-assisted ultrasound
Published in
Journal of Nanobiotechnology, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12951-016-0194-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olga K. Kosheleva, Tsung-Ching Lai, Nelson G. Chen, Michael Hsiao, Chung-Hsuan Chen

Abstract

Intense ultrasound, such as that used for tumor ablation, does not differentiate between cancerous and normal cells. A method combining ultrasound and biocompatible gold or magnetic nanoparticles (NPs) was developed under in vitro conditions using human breast and lung epithelial cells, which causes ultrasound to preferentially destroy cancerous cells. Co-cultures of BEAS-2B normal lung cells and A549 cancerous lung cells labeled with green and red fluorescent proteins, respectively, were treated with focused ultrasound beams with the addition of gold and magnetic nanoparticles. There were significantly more necrotic A549 cells than BEAS-2 cells when gold nanoparticles were added to the culture medium [(50.6 ± 15.1) vs. (7.4 ± 2.9) %, respectively, P < 0.01]. This selective damage to cancer cells was also observed for MDA-MB231 breast cancer cells relative to MCF-10A normal breast cells after treatment with magnetic nanoparticles. The data obtained for different cell lines indicate that nanoparticle-assisted ultrasound therapy (NAUT) could be an effective new tool for cancer-specific treatment and could potentially be combined with conventional methods of cancer diagnosis and therapy to further increase the overall cancer cure rate.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 25%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Master 12 15%
Researcher 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 14%
Engineering 10 13%
Materials Science 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 29 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 June 2016.
All research outputs
#19,089,683
of 23,655,067 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#961
of 1,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,550
of 355,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,655,067 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,543 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 355,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.