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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Gold nanoparticles with different charge and moiety induce differential cell response on mesenchymal stem cell osteogenesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Materials, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.03.001 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jia'En Jasmine Li, Naoki Kawazoe, Guoping Chen |
| Abstract |
Stem cells exist in an in vivo microenvironment that provides biological and physiochemical cues to direct cell fate decisions. How the stem cells sense and respond to these cues is still not clearly understood. Gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) have been widely used for manipulation of cell behavior due to their ease of synthesis and versatility in surface functionalization. In this study, AuNPs with amine (AuNP-NH2), carboxyl (AuNP-COOH) and hydroxyl (AuNP-OH) functional groups possessing different surface charge were synthesized. Human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) were treated with the surface functionalized AuNPs and assessed for cell viability and osteogenic differentiation ability. The surface functionalized AuNPs were well tolerated by hMSCs and showed no acute toxicity. Positively charged AuNPs showed higher cellular uptake. AuNPs did not inhibit osteogenesis but ALP activity and calcium deposition were markedly reduced in AuNP-COOH treatment. Gene profiling revealed an upregulation of TGF-β and FGF-2 expression that promoted cell proliferation over osteogenic differentiation in hMSCs. These results provide some insight on the influence of surface functionalized AuNPs on hMSCs behavior and the use of these materials for strategic tissue engineering. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Japan | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 25% |
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 10 | 10% |
| Materials Science | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 19% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 18 June 2015.
All research outputs
#732,193
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Materials
#140
of 10,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,911
of 279,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Materials
#3
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 279,876 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.