Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23144561›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2012

The role of surface charge in cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of medical nanoparticles.

Eleonore Fröhlich

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 851 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
851citing 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

851 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Extracellular Vesicles fromJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

791 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Eleonore FröhlichCenter for Medical Research, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. eleonore.froehlich@medunigraz.at

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 22576
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many types of nanoparticles (NPs) are tested for use in medical products, particularly in imaging and gene and drug delivery. For these applications, cellular uptake is usually a prerequisite and is governed in addition to size by surface characteristics such as hydrophobicity and charge. Although positive charge appears to improve the efficacy of imaging, gene transfer, and drug delivery, a higher cytotoxicity of such constructs has been reported. This review summarizes findings on the role of surface charge on cytotoxicity in general, action on specific cellular targets, modes of toxic action, cellular uptake, and intracellular localization of NPs. Effects of serum and intercell type differences are addressed. Cationic NPs cause more pronounced disruption of plasma-membrane integrity, stronger mitochondrial and lysosomal damage, and a higher number of autophagosomes than anionic NPs. In general, nonphagocytic cells ingest cationic NPs to a higher extent, but charge density and hydrophobicity are equally important; phagocytic cells preferentially take up anionic NPs. Cells do not use different uptake routes for cationic and anionic NPs, but high uptake rates are usually linked to greater biological effects. The different uptake preferences of phagocytic and nonphagocytic cells for cationic and anionic NPs may influence the efficacy and selectivity of NPs for drug delivery and imaging.

Indexed as

AnimalsApoptosisCell MembraneDiffusionHumansNanocapsulesStatic ElectricityStructure-Activity RelationshipSurface PropertiesNanocapsulesdendrimersendocytosislysosomesplasma membranepolystyrene particlesquantum dots

Identifiers

PMID23144561
PMCPMC3493258

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.