| Title |
Comparison of anti-angiogenic properties of pristine carbon nanoparticles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Discover Nano, 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. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 22% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 23 | 51% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 05 September 2023.
All research outputs
#3,621,892
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Discover Nano
#54
of 1,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,920
of 206,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Discover Nano
#2
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,146 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 206,040 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.