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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Near-infrared quantum dots labelled with a tumor selective tetrabranched peptide for in vivo imaging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nanobiotechnology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12951-018-0346-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jlenia Brunetti, Giulia Riolo, Mariangela Gentile, Andrea Bernini, Eugenio Paccagnini, Chiara Falciani, Luisa Lozzi, Silvia Scali, Lorenzo Depau, Alessandro Pini, Pietro Lupetti, Luisa Bracci |
| Abstract |
Near-infrared quantum dots (NIR QDs) are a new class of fluorescent labels with excellent bioimaging features, such as high fluorescence intensity, good fluorescence stability, sufficient electron density, and strong tissue-penetrating ability. For all such features, NIR QDs have great potential for early cancer diagnosis, in vivo tumor imaging and high resolution electron microscopy studies on cancer cells. In the present study we constructed NIR QDs functionalized with the NT4 cancer-selective tetrabranched peptides (NT4-QDs). We observed specific uptake of NT4-QDs in human cancer cells in in vitro experiments and a much higher selective accumulation and retention of targeted QDs at the tumor site, compared to not targeted QDs, in a colon cancer mouse model. NIR QDs labelled with the tetrabranched NT4 peptide have very promising performance for selective addressing of tumor cells in vitro and in vivo, proving rising features of NT4-QDs as theranostics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 19 | 43% |
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 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,640,437
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#920
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,260
of 332,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 332,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.