Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24097313›Full record

ReviewChemical Society reviews2013

Cellular nanotechnology: making biological interfaces smarter.

Paula M Mendes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemical Society reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Hybrid fibres: a new path in tissue regeneration.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Nanoparticles for Interrogation of Cell Signaling.Annual review of analytical chemistry (Palo Alto, Calif.) · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Nanomaterial and interface advances in immunoassay biosensors.The journal of physical chemistry. C, Nanomaterials and interfaces · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Nanotechnology-based antiviral therapeutics.Drug delivery and translational research · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Polystyrene-ACS omega · 2020
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Molecular Regulators of Cellular Mechanoadaptation at Cell-Material Interfaces.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    Review
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.

Paula M MendesSchool of Chemical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. p.m.mendes@bham.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT091285MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, there has been an outburst of research on engineered cell-material interfaces driven by nanotechnology and its tools and techniques. This tutorial review begins by providing a brief introduction to nanostructured materials, followed by an overview of the wealth of nanoscale fabrication and analysis tools available for their development. This background serves as the basis for a discussion of early breakthroughs and recent key developments in the endeavour to develop nanostructured materials as smart interfaces for fundamental cellular studies, tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. The review covers three major aspects of nanostructured interfaces - nanotopographical control, dynamic behaviour and intracellular manipulation and sensing - where efforts are continuously being made to further understand cell function and provide new ways to control cell behaviour. A critical reflection of the current status and future challenges are discussed as a conclusion to the review.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsHumansNanostructuresNanotechnologyRegenerative MedicineSurface PropertiesTissue EngineeringBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID24097313
PMCPMC3984013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.