Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19364724›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2009

Material nanosizing effect on living organisms: non-specific, biointeractive, physical size effects.

Fumio Watari, Noriyuki Takashi, Atsuro Yokoyama, Motohiro Uo, Tsukasa Akasaka, Yoshinori Sato, Shigeaki Abe, Yasunori Totsuka, Kazuyuki Tohji

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fumio WatariGraduate School of Dental Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-8586, Japan. watari@den.hokudai.ac.jp
Noriyuki Takashi
Atsuro Yokoyama
Motohiro Uo
Tsukasa Akasaka
Yoshinori Sato
Shigeaki Abe
Yasunori Totsuka
Kazuyuki Tohji
Hokkaido University · JPTohoku University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanosizing effects of materials on biological organisms was investigated by biochemical cell functional tests, cell proliferation and animal implantation testing. The increase in specific surface area causes the enhancement of ionic dissolution and serious toxicity for soluble, stimulative materials. This effect originates solely from materials and enhances the same functions as those in a macroscopic size as a catalyst. There are other effects that become prominent, especially for non-soluble, biocompatible materials such as Ti. Particle size dependence showed the critical size for the transition of behaviour is at approximately 100 microm, 10 microm and 200 nm. This effect has its origin in the biological interaction process between both particles and cells/tissue. Expression of superoxide anions, cytokines tumour necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-1 beta from neutrophils was increased with the decrease in particle size and especially pronounced below 10 microm, inducing phagocytosis to cells and inflammation of tissue, although inductively coupled plasma chemical analysis showed no dissolution from Ti particles. Below 200 nm, stimulus decreases, then particles invade into the internal body through the respiratory or digestive systems and diffuse inside the body. Although macroscopic hydroxyapatite, which exhibits excellent osteoconductivity, is not replaced with natural bone, nanoapatite composites induce both phagocytosis of composites by osteoclasts and new bone formation by osteoblasts when implanted in bone defects. The progress of this bioreaction results in the conversion of functions to bone substitution. Although macroscopic graphite is non-cell adhesive, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are cell adhesive. The adsorption of proteins and nano-meshwork structure contribute to the excellent cell adhesion and growth on CNTs. Non-actuation of the immune system except for a few innate immunity processes gives the non-specific nature to the particle bioreaction and restricts reaction to the size-sensitive phagocytosis. Materials larger than cell size, approximately 10 microm, behave inertly, but those smaller become biointeractive and induce the intrinsic functions of living organisms. This bioreaction process causes the conversion of functions such as from biocompatibility to stimulus in Ti-abraded particles, from non-bone substitutional to bone substitutional in nanoapatite and from non-cell adhesive to cell adhesive CNTs. The insensitive nature permits nanoparticles that are less than 200 nm to slip through body defence systems and invade directly into the internal body.

Indexed as

Materials TestingAnimalsApatitesBiocompatible MaterialsCell ProliferationCells, CulturedDrug Delivery SystemsGuided Tissue RegenerationHumansMetalsNanostructuresNanotechnologyNanotubes, CarbonParticle SizeRatsRats, WistarApatitesBiocompatible MaterialsMetalsNanotubes, Carbon

Identifiers

PMID19364724
PMCPMC2690091
OpenAlexW2111280604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.