↓ Skip to main content

Technical Improvement and Application of Hydrodynamic Gene Delivery in Study of Liver Diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

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
Technical Improvement and Application of Hydrodynamic Gene Delivery in Study of Liver Diseases
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00591
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mei Huang, Rui Sun, Qiang Huang, Zhigang Tian

Abstract

Development of an safe and efficient in vivo gene delivery method is indispensable for molecular biology research and the progress in the following gene therapy. Over the past few years, hydrodynamic gene delivery (HGD) with naked DNA has drawn increasing interest in both research and potential clinic applications due to its high efficiency and low risk in triggering immune responses and carcinogenesis in comparison to viral vectors. This method, involving intravenous injection (i.v.) of massive DNA in a short duration, gives a transient but high in vivo gene expression especially in the liver of small animals. In addition to DNA, it has also been shown to deliver other substance such as RNA, proteins, synthetic small compounds and even viruses in vivo. Given its ability to robustly mimic in vivo hepatitis B virus (HBV) production in liver, HGD has become a fundamental and important technology on HBV studies in our group and many other groups. Recently, there have been interesting reports about the applications and further improvement of this technology in other liver research. Here, we review the principle, safety, current application and development of hydrodynamic delivery in liver disease studies, and discuss its future prospects, clinical potential and challenges.

X Demographics

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.
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 %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 25 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,444,703
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#10,193
of 16,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,674
of 315,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#163
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,305 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 315,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.