Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22848179›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nanomedicine2012

Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cellulose nanofibers.

Renata de Lima, Leandro Oliveira Feitosa, Cintia Rodrigues Maruyama, Mariana Abreu Barga, Patrícia Cristina Yamawaki, Isolda Jesus Vieira, Eliangela M Teixeira, Ana Carolina Corrêa, Luiz Henrique Caparelli Mattoso, Leonardo Fernandes Fraceto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Nanoparticle-mediated targeted drug delivery for breast cancer treatment.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Reviews on cancer · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Renata de LimaDepartment of Biotechnology, University of Sorocaba, Sorocaba, SP, Brazil. renata.lima@prof.uniso.br
Leandro Oliveira Feitosa
Cintia Rodrigues Maruyama
Mariana Abreu Barga
Patrícia Cristina Yamawaki
Isolda Jesus Vieira
Eliangela M Teixeira
Ana Carolina Corrêa
Luiz Henrique Caparelli Mattoso
Leonardo Fernandes Fraceto

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAgricultural products and by products provide the primary materials for a variety of technological applications in diverse industrial sectors. Agro-industrial wastes, such as cotton and curaua fibers, are used to prepare nanofibers for use in thermoplastic films, where they are combined with polymeric matrices, and in biomedical applications such as tissue engineering, amongst other applications. The development of products containing nanofibers offers a promising alternative for the use of agricultural products, adding value to the chains of production. However, the emergence of new nanotechnological products demands that their risks to human health and the environment be evaluated. This has resulted in the creation of the new area of nanotoxicology, which addresses the toxicological aspects of these materials. PURPOSE AND

methodsContributing to these developments, the present work involved a genotoxicological study of different nanofibers, employing chromosomal aberration and comet assays, as well as cytogenetic and molecular analyses, to obtain preliminary information concerning nanofiber safety. The methodology consisted of exposure of Allium cepa roots, and animal cell cultures (lymphocytes and fibroblasts), to different types of nanofibers. Negative controls, without nanofibers present in the medium, were used for comparison.

resultsThe nanofibers induced different responses according to the cell type used. In plant cells, the most genotoxic nanofibers were those derived from green, white, and brown cotton, and curaua, while genotoxicity in animal cells was observed using nanofibers from brown cotton and curaua. An important finding was that ruby cotton nanofibers did not cause any significant DNA breaks in the cell types employed.

conclusionThis work demonstrates the feasibility of determining the genotoxic potential of nanofibers derived from plant cellulose to obtain information vital both for the future usage of these materials in agribusiness and for an understanding of their environmental impacts.

Indexed as

DNA Damage3T3 CellsAdolescentAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsCells, CulturedCelluloseChromosome AberrationsComet AssayCotton FiberHumansLeukocytes, MononuclearMiceMitotic IndexMutagenicity TestsNanofibersCellulosecottoncurauaenvironmental nanotechnologynanotoxicology

Identifiers

PMID22848179
PMCPMC3405882

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.