↓ Skip to main content

Cryptic Epitopes of Albumin Determine Mononuclear Phagocyte System Clearance of Nanomaterials.

Overview of attention for article published in ACS Nano, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Cryptic Epitopes of Albumin Determine Mononuclear Phagocyte System Clearance of Nanomaterials.
Published in
ACS Nano, March 2014
DOI 10.1021/nn405830g
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gysell M. Mortimer

Abstract

While plasma proteins can influence the physicochemical properties of nanoparticles, the adsorption of protein to the surface of nanomaterials can also alter the structure and function of the protein. Here, we show that plasma proteins form a hard corona around synthetic layered silicate nanoparticles (LSN) and that one of the principle proteins is serum albumin. The protein corona was required for recognition of the nanoparticles by scavenger receptors, a major receptor family associated with the mononuclear phagocyte system (MPS). Albumin alone could direct nanoparticle uptake by human macrophages, which involved class A but not class B scavenger receptors. Upon binding to LSN, albumin unfolded to reveal a cryptic epitope that could also be exposed by heat denaturation. This work provides an understanding of how albumin, and possibly other proteins, can promote nanomaterial recognition by the MPS without albumin requiring chemical modification for scavenger receptor recognition. These findings also demonstrate an additional function for albumin in vivo.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Hong Kong 1 2%
Unknown 46 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 39%
Researcher 12 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 12%
Unspecified 3 6%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 15 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 24%
Unspecified 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Materials Science 4 8%
Other 9 18%

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 09 April 2014.
All research outputs
#2,926,696
of 6,229,690 outputs
Outputs from ACS Nano
#2,816
of 4,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,632
of 133,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ACS Nano
#174
of 290 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,229,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 133,513 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 290 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.