| Title |
Engineering imaging probes and molecular machines for nanomedicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science China Life Sciences, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11427-012-4380-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sheng Tong, Thomas J. Cradick, Yan Ma, ZhiFei Dai, Gang Bao |
| Abstract |
Nanomedicine is an emerging field that integrates nanotechnology, biomolecular engineering, life sciences and medicine; it is expected to produce major breakthroughs in medical diagnostics and therapeutics. Due to the size-compatibility of nano-scale structures and devices with proteins and nucleic acids, the design, synthesis and application of nanoprobes, nanocarriers and nanomachines provide unprecedented opportunities for achieving a better control of biological processes, and drastic improvements in disease detection, therapy, and prevention. Recent advances in nanomedicine include the development of functional nanoparticle based molecular imaging probes, nano-structured materials as drug/gene carriers for in vivo delivery, and engineered molecular machines for treating single-gene disorders. This review focuses on the development of molecular imaging probes and engineered nucleases for nanomedicine, including quantum dot bioconjugates, quantum dot-fluorescent protein FRET probes, molecular beacons, magnetic and gold nanoparticle based imaging contrast agents, and the design and validation of zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) and TAL effector nucleases (TALENs) for gene targeting. The challenges in translating nanomedicine approaches to clinical applications are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 28% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 23% |
| Engineering | 6 | 14% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
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 13 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,380,628
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Science China Life Sciences
#617
of 1,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,652
of 184,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science China Life Sciences
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 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 1,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 184,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.