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 |
Effect of Virulence Factors on the Photodynamic Inactivation of Cryptococcus neoformans
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0054387 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Renato A. Prates, Beth Burgwyn Fuchs, Kazue Mizuno, Qurat Naqvi, Ilka T. Kato, Martha S. Ribeiro, Eleftherios Mylonakis, George P. Tegos, Michael R. Hamblin |
| Abstract |
Opportunistic fungal pathogens may cause an array of superficial infections or serious invasive infections, especially in immunocompromised patients. Cryptococcus neoformans is a pathogen causing cryptococcosis in HIV/AIDS patients, but treatment is limited due to the relative lack of potent antifungal agents. Photodynamic inactivation (PDI) uses the combination of non-toxic dyes called photosensitizers and harmless visible light, which produces singlet oxygen and other reactive oxygen species that produce cell inactivation and death. We report the use of five structurally unrelated photosensitizers (methylene blue, Rose Bengal, selenium derivative of a Nile blue dye, a cationic fullerene and a conjugate between poly-L-lysine and chlorin(e6)) combined with appropriate wavelengths of light to inactivate C. neoformans. Mutants lacking capsule and laccase, and culture conditions that favoured melanin production were used to probe the mechanisms of PDI and the effect of virulence factors. The presence of cell wall, laccase and melanin tended to protect against PDI, but the choice of the appropriate photosensitizers and dosimetry was able to overcome this resistance. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 65 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 18% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 10% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 30% |
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 2013.
All research outputs
#20,178,948
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#172,882
of 193,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,057
of 284,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,025
of 4,895 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 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 193,724 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. 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 284,846 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 4,895 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.