Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21422259›Full record

ReviewToxicologic pathology2011

Nanotoxicology--a pathologist's perspective.

Ann F Hubbs, Robert R Mercer, Stanley A Benkovic, Jack Harkema, Krishnan Sriram, Diane Schwegler-Berry, Madhusudan P Goravanahally, Timothy R Nurkiewicz, Vincent Castranova, Linda M Sargent

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxicologic pathology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Rapid single-particle chemical imaging of nanoplastics by SRS microscopy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  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

10 authors.

Ann F HubbsHealth Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. ahubbs@cdc.gov
Robert R Mercer
Stanley A Benkovic
Jack Harkema
Krishnan Sriram
Diane Schwegler-Berry
Madhusudan P Goravanahally
Timothy R Nurkiewicz
Vincent Castranova
Linda M Sargent

Funding

Remote Microvascular Dysfunction After Particulate Matter ExposureR01ES015022 · NIEHS · WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY · PI NURKIEWICZ, TIMOTHY R · 2007 to 2021
$4.9M
Microvascular Health and Nanoparticle ExposureRC1ES018274 · NIEHS · WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY · PI NURKIEWICZ, TIMOTHY R · 2009 to 2010
$1000k
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES015022NIEHS NIH HHS R01ES015022NIEHS NIH HHS RC1 ES018274
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in chemistry and engineering have created a new technology, nanotechnology, involving the tiniest known manufactured products. These products have a rapidly increasing market share and appear poised to revolutionize engineering, cosmetics, and medicine. Unfortunately, nanotoxicology, the study of nanoparticulate health effects, lags behind advances in nanotechnology. Over the past decade, existing literature on ultrafine particles and respirable durable fibers has been supplemented by studies of first-generation nanotechnology products. These studies suggest that nanosizing increases the toxicity of many particulates. First, as size decreases, surface area increases, thereby speeding up dissolution of soluble particulates and exposing more of the reactive surface of durable but reactive particulates. Second, nanosizing facilitates movement of particulates across cellular and intracellular barriers. Third, nanosizing allows particulates to interact with, and sometimes even hybridize with, subcellular structures, including in some cases microtubules and DNA. Finally, nanosizing of some particulates, increases pathologic and physiologic responses, including inflammation, fibrosis, allergic responses, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity, and may alter cardiovascular and lymphatic function. Knowing how the size and physiochemical properties of nanoparticulates affect bioactivity is important in assuring that the exciting new products of nanotechnology are used safely. This review provides an introduction to the pathology and toxicology of nanoparticulates.

Indexed as

AnimalsCarcinogensCosmeticsDustEnvironmental ExposureFibrosisHumansHypersensitivityInflammationMutagensNanoparticlesNanotechnologyParticle SizeCarcinogensCosmeticsDustMutagens

Identifiers

PMID21422259
PMCPMC9808592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.