↓ Skip to main content

Biogenic gas nanostructures as ultrasonic molecular reporters

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Nanotechnology, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
17 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
twitter
5 X users
patent
10 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
317 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
Biogenic gas nanostructures as ultrasonic molecular reporters
Published in
Nature Nanotechnology, March 2014
DOI 10.1038/nnano.2014.32
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikhail G. Shapiro, Patrick W. Goodwill, Arkosnato Neogy, Melissa Yin, F. Stuart Foster, David V. Schaffer, Steven M. Conolly

Abstract

Ultrasound is among the most widely used non-invasive imaging modalities in biomedicine, but plays a surprisingly small role in molecular imaging due to a lack of suitable molecular reporters on the nanoscale. Here, we introduce a new class of reporters for ultrasound based on genetically encoded gas nanostructures from microorganisms, including bacteria and archaea. Gas vesicles are gas-filled protein-shelled compartments with typical widths of 45-250 nm and lengths of 100-600 nm that exclude water and are permeable to gas. We show that gas vesicles produce stable ultrasound contrast that is readily detected in vitro and in vivo, that their genetically encoded physical properties enable multiple modes of imaging, and that contrast enhancement through aggregation permits their use as molecular biosensors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 317 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 311 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 86 27%
Researcher 44 14%
Student > Master 38 12%
Student > Bachelor 37 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 37 12%
Unknown 60 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 62 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 48 15%
Chemistry 40 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 12%
Physics and Astronomy 18 6%
Other 42 13%
Unknown 69 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 189. 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 21 November 2023.
All research outputs
#195,345
of 24,153,435 outputs
Outputs from Nature Nanotechnology
#117
of 3,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,606
of 226,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Nanotechnology
#5
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,153,435 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 226,050 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 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 93% of its contemporaries.