↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of anti-angiogenic properties of pristine carbon nanoparticles

Overview of attention for article published in Nanoscale Research Letters, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
patent
2 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of anti-angiogenic properties of pristine carbon nanoparticles
Published in
Nanoscale Research Letters, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1556-276x-8-195
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mateusz Wierzbicki, Ewa Sawosz, Marta Grodzik, Marta Prasek, Slawomir Jaworski, André Chwalibog

Abstract

Angiogenesis is vital for tumour formation, development and metastasis. Recent reports show that carbon nanomaterials inhibit various angiogenic signalling pathways and, therefore, can be potentially used in anti-angiogenic therapy. In the present study, we compared the effect of different carbon nanomaterials on blood vessel development. Diamond nanoparticles, graphite nanoparticles, graphene nanosheets, multi-wall nanotubes and C60 fullerenes were evaluated for their angiogenic activities using the in ovo chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane model. Diamond nanoparticles and multi-wall nanotubes showed the greatest anti-angiogenic properties. Interestingly, fullerene exhibited the opposite effect, increasing blood vessel development, while graphite nanoparticles and graphene had no effect. Subsequently, protein levels of pro-angiogenic growth factor receptors were analysed, showing that diamond nanoparticles decreased the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor. These results provide new insights into the biological activity of carbon nanomaterials and emphasise the potential use of multi-wall nanotubes and diamond nanoparticles in anti-angiogenic tumour therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 10 23%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Chemistry 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 22 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,015,483
of 15,956,969 outputs
Outputs from Nanoscale Research Letters
#70
of 944 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,696
of 156,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nanoscale Research Letters
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,956,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 944 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. 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 156,316 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them