ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2012
The role of calcifying nanoparticles in biology and medicine.
Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical implications of calcifying nanoparticles in dental diseases: a critical review.International journal of nanomedicine · 2014Pooled it
- Role of calcifying nanoparticles in the development of testicular microlithiasis in vivo.BMC urology · 2017Article
- Cytotoxicity and apoptosis induced by nanobacteria in human breast cancer cells.International journal of nanomedicine · 2014Article
- Calcifying nanoparticles: one face of distinct entities?Frontiers in microbiology · 2014Article
- Cytotoxicity induced by nanobacteria and nanohydroxyapatites in human choriocarcinoma cells.Nanoscale research letters · 2014Article
- New insights into the pathogenesis of renal calculi.The Urologic clinics of North America · 2013Review
- Bions: a family of biomimetic mineralo-organic complexes derived from biological fluids.PloS one · 2013Article
- Preparation of a nanoscale baohuoside I-phospholipid complex and determination of its absorption: in vivo and in vitro evaluations.International journal of nanomedicine · 2012Article
- Nanobacteria in the pathogenesis of urolithiasis: Myth or reality?Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaReview
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
Calcifying nanoparticles (CNPs) (nanobacteria, nanobacteria-like particles, nanobes) were discovered over 25 years ago; nevertheless, their nature is still obscure. To date, nobody has been successful in credibly determining whether they are the smallest self-replicating life form on Earth, or whether they represent mineralo-protein complexes without any relation to living organisms. Proponents of both theories have a number of arguments in favor of the validity of their hypotheses. However, after epistemological analysis carried out in this review, all arguments used by proponents of the theory about the physicochemical model of CNP formation may be refuted on the basis of the performed investigations, and therefore published data suggest a biological nature of CNPs. The only obstacle to establish CNPs as living organisms is the absence of a fairly accurately sequenced genome at the present time. Moreover, it is clear that CNPs play an important role in etiopathogenesis of many diseases, and this association is independent from their nature. Consequently, emergence of CNPs in an organism is a pathological, not a physiological, process. The classification and new directions of further investigations devoted to the role of CNPs in biology and medicine are proposed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.