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 |
A matrix reservoir for improved control of non-viral gene delivery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Controlled Release, February 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jconrel.2009.02.006 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carolyn Holladay, Michael Keeney, Udo Greiser, Mary Murphy, Timothy O'Brien, Abhay Pandit |
| Abstract |
Non-viral gene delivery suffers from a number of limitations including short transgene expression times and low transfection efficiency. Collagen scaffolds have previously been investigated as in vitro DNA reservoirs, which allow sustained release of genetic information. Efficient viral gene-transfer from these scaffolds has previously been demonstrated. However, due to concerns about the safety of viral gene therapy, the use of non-viral vectors may be preferable. In this study a DNA-dendrimer complex embedded in a cross-linked collagen scaffold was investigated as a reservoir for non-viral delivery. Elution from the scaffolds and transfection of seeded rat mesenchymal stem cells were used to evaluate the scaffold's ability to act as a reservoir for the complexes. Elution from the scaffolds was minimal after 2 days with a total of 25% of the complexes released after 7 days. Extended transgene expression after DNA-dendrimer complex delivery from the scaffolds in comparison to direct delivery to cells was observed. The elongated transfection period and relatively high levels of reporter gene expression are significant advantages over other non-viral gene therapy techniques. This platform has the potential to be an effective method of scaffold-mediated gene delivery suitable for in vitro and in vivo applications. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 3 | 8% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 3 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 38% |
| Materials Science | 5 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 10% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
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 23 May 2013.
All research outputs
#22,760,732
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Controlled Release
#8,648
of 9,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,452
of 109,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Controlled Release
#44
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 109,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.