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 |
Novel ruthenium complex K2[Ru(dmgly)Cl4]·2H2O is toxic to C6 astrocytoma cell line, but not to primary rat astrocytes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, December 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2004.10.007 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vesna Djinović, Miljana Momčilović, Sanja Grgurić-Šipka, Vladimir Trajković, Marija Mostarica Stojković, Djordje Miljković, Tibor Sabo |
| Abstract |
A novel class of ruthenium (III) complexes of formulas K[Ru(sar)2Cl2].12H2O and K2[Ru(dmgly)Cl4].2H2O, containing bidentate chelates N-methylglycine (sarcosine, sar) or N,N-dimethylglycine (dmgly) and additional chloro ligands were synthesized. The complexes have been obtained by direct reaction of ruthenium(III) chloride with corresponding bidentate ligand followed by addition of base (KOH). These new complexes were characterized by elemental analysis, IR and electronic absorption spectroscopy. As astrocytomas, the most common of all brain tumors, are still very difficult to treat, we examined the influence of newly synthesized ruthenium-based complexes, as well as the earlier synthesized analogue platinum(IV) complexes [Pt(dmgly)2Cl2], [Pt(sar)2Br2] and [Pt(dmgly)2Br2], on rat astrocytoma C6 cells in vitro. Among these complexes only K2[Ru(dmgly)Cl4].2H2O and [Pt(dmgly)2Br2] markedly inhibited the viability of non-confluent C6 cells. Furthermore, only complex K2[Ru(dmgly)Cl4].2H2O was able to reduce viability in confluent C6 cultures. Importantly, this complex was not toxic to primary rat astrocytes or macrophages. Having in mind that appropriate chemotherapy should be effective against tumor cells without harming normal tissues, complex K2[Ru(dmgly)Cl4].2H2O could be a promising agent for developing therapeutics against astrocytomas. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 3 | 25% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Researcher | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 17% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 17% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 September 2009.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry
#510
of 1,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,956
of 151,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry
#8
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 151,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.