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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Chitosan/sulfated locust bean gum nanoparticles: In vitro and in vivo evaluation towards an application in oral immunization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.12.076 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luis Braz, Ana Grenha, Domingos Ferreira, Ana M. Rosa da Costa, Carlos Gamazo, Bruno Sarmento |
| Abstract |
This work proposes the design of nanoparticles based on locus bean gum (LBG) and chitosan to be used as oral immunoadjuvant for vaccination purposes. LBG-based nanoparticles were prepared by mild polyelectrolyte complexation between chitosan (CS) and a synthesized LBG sulfate derivative (LBGS). Morphological characterization suggested that nanoparticles present a solid and compact structure with spherical-like shape. Sizes around 180-200nm and a positive surface charge between +9mV and +14mV were obtained. CS/LBGS nanoparticles did not affect cell viability of Caco-2 cells after 3h and 24h of exposure when tested at concentrations up to 1.0mg/mL. Two model antigens (a particulate acellular extract HE of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis, and ovalbumin as soluble antigen) were associated to CS/LBGS nanoparticles with efficiencies around 26% for ovalbumin and 32% for HE, which resulted in loading capacities up to 12%. The process did not affect the antigenicity of the associated antigens. BALB/c mice were orally immunized with ovalbumin-loaded nanoparticles (100μg), and results indicate an adjuvant effect of the CS/LBGS nanoparticles, eliciting a balanced Th1/Th2 immune response. Thus, CS/LBGS nanoparticles are promising as antigen mucosal delivery strategy, with particular interest for oral administration. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 20% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 19% |
| Chemistry | 6 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 25 | 36% |
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 04 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
#4,438
of 7,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#319,988
of 421,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
#55
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,497 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 421,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.