Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21932125›Full record

ReviewProtoplasma2012

The importance of a validated standard methodology to define in vitro toxicity of nano-TiO2.

Janez Valant, Ivo Iavicoli, Damjana Drobne

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Protoplasma, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Physiological and Pathological Factors Affecting Drug Delivery to the Brain by Nanoparticles.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Janez ValantBiotechnical Faculty, Department of Biology, University of Ljubljana, Večna pot 111, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. janez.valant@bf.uni-lj.si
Ivo Iavicoli
Damjana Drobne

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several in vitro studies on the potential toxicity of nano-TiO(2) have been published and recent reviews have summarised them. Most of these reports concluded that physicochemical properties of nanoparticles are fundamental to their toxicological effects. No published review has compared in vitro tests with similar test strategies in terms of exposure duration and measured endpoints and for this reason we have attempted to assess the degree of homogeneity among in vitro tests and to assess if they afford reliable data to support risk assessment. The responses in different in vitro tests appeared to be unrelated to primary particle size. The biologically effective concentrations in different tests can be seen to differ by as many as two orders of magnitude and such differences could be explained either by different sensitivities of cell lines to nanoparticles or by effect of the test media. Our review indicates that even when the in vitro tests measure the same biomarkers with the same exposure duration and known primary particle sizes, it is insufficient merely to use such data for risk assessment. In the future, validated standard methods should include a limited number of cell lines and an obligatory selection of biomarkers. For routine purposes, it is important that assays can be easily conducted, false negatives and false positives are excluded and unbiased interpretation of results is provided. Papers published to date provide an understanding of the mode on nano-TiO(2) action but are not suitable for assessment and management of risk.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomarkersCells, CulturedCell SurvivalHumansNanoparticlesParticle SizeRisk AssessmentTitaniumToxicity TestsBiomarkersTitaniumtitanium dioxide

Identifiers

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.