ArticleBiomedical engineering online2012
Biocompatibility of crystalline opal nanoparticles.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nanoparticle Surface Functionalization: How to Improve Biocompatibility and Cellular Internalization.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020Review
- Antibacterial Activity of Ciprofloxacin-Encapsulated Cockle Shells Calcium Carbonate (Aragonite) Nanoparticles and Its Biocompatability in Macrophage J774A.1.International journal of molecular sciences · 2016Article
- Synthesis, characterization and bactericidal activity of silica/silver core-shell nanoparticles.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2014Article
- Osteoblasts growth behaviour on bio-based calcium carbonate aragonite nanocrystal.BioMed research international · 2014Article
- Biocompatibility of bio based calcium carbonate nanocrystals aragonite polymorph on NIH 3T3 fibroblast cell line.African journal of traditional, complementary, and alternative medicines : AJTCAM · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSilica nanoparticles are being developed as a host of biomedical and biotechnological applications. For this reason, there are more studies about biocompatibility of silica with amorphous and crystalline structure. Except hydrated silica (opal), despite is presents directly and indirectly in humans. Two sizes of crystalline opal nanoparticles were investigated in this work under criteria of toxicology.
methodsIn particular, cytotoxic and genotoxic effects caused by opal nanoparticles (80 and 120 nm) were evaluated in cultured mouse cells via a set of bioassays, methylthiazolyldiphenyl-tetrazolium-bromide (MTT) and 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU).
results3T3-NIH cells were incubated for 24 and 72 h in contact with nanocrystalline opal particles, not presented significant statistically difference in the results of cytotoxicity. Genotoxicity tests of crystalline opal nanoparticles were performed by the BrdU assay on the same cultured cells for 24 h incubation. The reduction of BrdU-incorporated cells indicates that nanocrystalline opal exposure did not caused unrepairable damage DNA.
conclusionsThere is no relationship between that particles size and MTT reduction, as well as BrdU incorporation, such that the opal particles did not induce cytotoxic effect and genotoxicity in cultured mouse cells.
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.