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 |
Endotoxin Contamination in Nanomaterials Leads to the Misinterpretation of Immunosafety Results
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in immunology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00472 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yang Li, Mayumi Fujita, Diana Boraschi |
| Abstract |
Given the presence of engineered nanomaterials in consumers' products and their application in nanomedicine, nanosafety assessment is becoming increasingly important. In particular, immunosafety aspects are being actively investigated. In nanomaterial immunosafety testing strategies, it is important to consider that nanomaterials and nanoparticles are very easy to become contaminated with endotoxin, which is a widespread contaminant coming from the Gram-negative bacterial cell membrane. Because of the potent inflammatory activity of endotoxin, contaminated nanomaterials can show inflammatory/toxic effects due to endotoxin, which may mask or misidentify the real biological effects (or lack thereof) of nanomaterials. Therefore, before running immunosafety assays, either in vitro or in vivo, the presence of endotoxin in nanomaterials must be evaluated. This calls for using appropriate assays with proper controls, because many nanomaterials interfere at various levels with the commercially available endotoxin detection methods. This also underlines the need to develop robust and bespoke strategies for endotoxin evaluation in nanomaterials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 7% |
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 21 | 78% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 96% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 20% |
| Researcher | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 12% |
| Chemistry | 9 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 24 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 04 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,537,085
of 25,845,895 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#2,562
of 32,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,040
of 325,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#43
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,845,895 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 325,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 389 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.