↓ Skip to main content

Molecular Determinants of the Cellular Entry of Asymmetric Peptide Dendrimers and Role of Caveolae

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
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.
Title
Molecular Determinants of the Cellular Entry of Asymmetric Peptide Dendrimers and Role of Caveolae
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0147491
Pubmed ID
Authors

Prarthana V. Rewatkar, Harendra S. Parekh, Marie-Odile Parat

Abstract

Caveolae are flask-shaped plasma membrane subdomains abundant in most cell types that participate in endocytosis. Caveola formation and functions require membrane proteins of the caveolin family, and cytoplasmic proteins of the cavin family. Cationic peptide dendrimers are non-vesicular chemical carriers that can transport pharmacological agents or genetic material across the plasma membrane. We prepared a panel of cationic dendrimers and investigated whether they require caveolae to enter into cells. Cell-based studies were performed using wild type or caveola-deficient i.e. caveolin-1 or PTRF gene-disrupted cells. There was a statistically significant difference in entry of cationic dendrimers between wild type and caveola-deficient cells. We further unveiled differences between dendrimers with varying charge density and head groups. Our results show, using a molecular approach, that (i) expression of caveola-forming proteins promotes cellular entry of cationic dendrimers and (ii) dendrimer structure can be modified to promote endocytosis in caveola-forming cells.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 29%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 29%
Chemistry 4 24%
Unspecified 1 6%
Chemical Engineering 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,302,535
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#173,972
of 194,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#331,714
of 394,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,411
of 5,012 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 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 194,879 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 394,766 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 5,012 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.