| Title |
Impact of nanoparticle surface functionalization on the protein corona and cellular adhesion, uptake and transport
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nanobiotechnology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12951-018-0394-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ashraf Abdelkhaliq, Meike van der Zande, Ans Punt, Richard Helsdingen, Sjef Boeren, Jacques J. M. Vervoort, Ivonne M. C. M. Rietjens, Hans Bouwmeester |
| Abstract |
Upon ingestion, nanoparticles can interact with the intestinal epithelial barrier potentially resulting in systemic uptake of nanoparticles. Nanoparticle properties have been described to influence the protein corona formation and subsequent cellular adhesion, uptake and transport. Here, we aimed to study the effects of nanoparticle size and surface chemistry on the protein corona formation and subsequent cellular adhesion, uptake and transport. Caco-2 intestinal cells, were exposed to negatively charged polystyrene nanoparticles (PSNPs) (50 and 200 nm), functionalized with sulfone or carboxyl groups, at nine nominal concentrations (15-250 μg/ml) for 10 up to 120 min. The protein coronas were analysed by LC-MS/MS. Subtle differences in the protein composition of the two PSNPs with different surface chemistry were noted. High-content imaging analysis demonstrated that sulfone PSNPs were associated with the cells to a significantly higher extent than the other PSNPs. The apparent cellular adhesion and uptake of 200 nm PSNPs was not significantly increased compared to 50 nm PSNPs with the same surface charge and chemistry. Surface chemistry outweighs the impact of size on the observed PSNP cellular associations. Also transport of the sulfone PSNPs through the monolayer of cells was significantly higher than that of carboxyl PSNPs. The results suggest that the composition of the protein corona and the PSNP surface chemistry influences cellular adhesion, uptake and monolayer transport, which might be predictive of the intestinal transport potency of NPs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 4 | 67% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 23% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 6% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 13% |
| Materials Science | 6 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 27% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 May 2021.
All research outputs
#7,002,649
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#257
of 1,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,749
of 337,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#13
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,456 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 337,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.