↓ Skip to main content

The Quest for Anti-inflammatory and Anti-infective Biomaterials in Clinical Translation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, September 2016
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 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
The Quest for Anti-inflammatory and Anti-infective Biomaterials in Clinical Translation
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2016.00071
Pubmed ID
Authors

May Griffith, Mohammad M. Islam, Joel Edin, Georgia Papapavlou, Oleksiy Buznyk, Hirak K. Patra

Abstract

Biomaterials are now being used or evaluated clinically as implants to supplement the severe shortage of available human donor organs. To date, however, such implants have mainly been developed as scaffolds to promote the regeneration of failing organs due to old age or congenital malformations. In the real world, however, infection or immunological issues often compromise patients. For example, bacterial and viral infections can result in uncontrolled immunopathological damage and lead to organ failure. Hence, there is a need for biomaterials and implants that not only promote regeneration but also address issues that are specific to compromised patients, such as infection and inflammation. Different strategies are needed to address the regeneration of organs that have been damaged by infection or inflammation for successful clinical translation. Therefore, the real quest is for multifunctional biomaterials with combined properties that can combat infections, modulate inflammation, and promote regeneration at the same time. These strategies will necessitate the inclusion of methodologies for management of the cellular and signaling components elicited within the local microenvironment. In the development of such biomaterials, strategies range from the inclusion of materials that have intrinsic anti-inflammatory properties, such as the synthetic lipid polymer, 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC), to silver nanoparticles that have antibacterial properties, to inclusion of nano- and micro-particles in biomaterials composites that deliver active drugs. In this present review, we present examples of both kinds of materials in each group along with their pros and cons. Thus, as a promising next generation strategy to aid or replace tissue/organ transplantation, an integrated smart programmable platform is needed for regenerative medicine applications to create and/or restore normal function at the cell and tissue levels. Therefore, now it is of utmost importance to develop integrative biomaterials based on multifunctional biopolymers and nanosystem for their practical and successful clinical translation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 9 12%
Materials Science 9 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 24 32%
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 16 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,732,563
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#2,159
of 6,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,099
of 330,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,640 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 330,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.