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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Alternative Methods for Characterization of Extracellular Vesicles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2012.00354 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fatemeh Momen-Heravi, Leonora Balaj, Sara Alian, John Tigges, Vasilis Toxavidis, Maria Ericsson, Robert J. Distel, Alexander R. Ivanov, Johan Skog, Winston Patrick Kuo |
| Abstract |
Extracellular vesicles (ECVs) are nano-sized vesicles released by all cells in vitro as well as in vivo. Their role has been implicated mainly in cell-cell communication, but also in disease biomarkers and more recently in gene delivery. They represent a snapshot of the cell status at the moment of release and carry bioreactive macromolecules such as nucleic acids, proteins, and lipids. A major limitation in this emerging new field is the availability/awareness of techniques to isolate and properly characterize ECVs. The lack of gold standards makes comparing different studies very difficult and may potentially hinder some ECVs-specific evidence. Characterization of ECVs has also recently seen many advances with the use of Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis, flow cytometry, cryo-electron microscopy instruments, and proteomic technologies. In this review, we discuss the latest developments in translational technologies involving characterization methods including the facts in their support and the challenges they face. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 246 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 55 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 52 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 38 | 15% |
| Unknown | 40 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 54 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 48 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 16% |
| Engineering | 19 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 34 | 13% |
| Unknown | 49 | 19% |
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 07 September 2012.
All research outputs
#20,166,700
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,270
of 13,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,176
of 244,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#208
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 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 13,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. 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 244,101 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 309 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.