ReviewProtoplasma2012
The importance of a validated standard methodology to define in vitro toxicity of nano-TiO2.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiological and Pathological Factors Affecting Drug Delivery to the Brain by Nanoparticles.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021Review
- Gastropod shell size and architecture influence the applicability of methods used to estimate internal volume.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Effect of engineered TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles on erythrocytes, platelet-rich plasma and giant unilamelar phospholipid vesicles.BMC veterinary research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
21932125What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.