↓ Skip to main content

Effects of carbon nanofiber on physiology of Drosophila

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Effects of carbon nanofiber on physiology of Drosophila
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s82637
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shin-Hae Lee, Hye-Yeon Lee, Eun-Ji Lee, Dongwoo Khang, Kyung-Jin Min

Abstract

As nanomaterials are now widely utilized in a wide range of fields for both medical and industrial applications, concerns over their potential toxicity to human health and the environment have increased. To evaluate the toxicity of long-term exposure to carbon nanofibers (CNFs) in an in vivo system, we selected Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism. Oral administration of CNFs at a concentration of 1,000 μg/mL had adverse effects on fly physiology. Long-term administration of a high dose of CNFs (1,000 μg/mL) reduced larval viability based on the pupa:egg ratio, adult fly lifespan, reproductive activity, climbing activity, and survival rate in response to starvation stress. However, CNFs at a low concentration (100 μg/mL) did not show any significant deleterious effect on developmental rate or fecundity. Furthermore, long-term administration of a low dose of CNFs (100 μg/mL) increased lifespan and climbing ability, coincident with mild reactive oxygen species generation and stimulation of the antioxidant system. Taken together, our data suggest that a high dose of CNFs has obvious physiological toxicity, whereas low-dose chronic exposure to CNFs can actually have beneficial effects via stimulation of the antioxidant defense system.

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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 10 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Environmental Science 2 8%
Chemical Engineering 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 10 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,169,543
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,664
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,584
of 278,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#28
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 278,920 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.