Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24198499›Full record

ReviewNanotechnology, science and applications2012

The effect of nanoparticle uptake on cellular behavior: disrupting or enabling functions?

Alice Panariti, Giuseppe Miserocchi, Ilaria Rivolta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nanotechnology, science and applications, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing 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

122 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Heterogeneous and Composite Bioinks for 3D-Bioprinting of Complex Tissue.Biomedical materials & devices (New York, N.Y.) · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

62 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

3 authors.

Alice PanaritiDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Milano Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Giuseppe Miserocchi
Ilaria Rivolta

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanoparticles (NPs) are materials with overall dimensions in the nanoscale range. They have unique physicochemical properties, and have emerged as important players in current research in modern medicine. In the last few decades, several types of NPs and microparticles have been synthesized and proposed for use as contrast agents for diagnostics and imaging and for drug delivery; for example, in cancer therapy. Yet specific targeting that will improve their delivery still represents an unsolved challenge. The mechanism by which NPs enter the cell has important implications not only for their fate but also for their impact on biological systems. Several papers in the literature discuss the potential risks related to NP exposure, and more recently the concept that even sublethal doses of NPs may elicit a cell response has been proposed. In this review, we intend to present an overall view of cell mechanisms that may be perturbed by cell-NP interaction. Published data, in fact, emphasize that NPs should no longer be viewed only as simple carriers for biomedical applications, but that they can also play an active role in mediating biological effects.

Indexed as

bio compatibilityintracellular traffickingnanoparticlesuptake

Identifiers

PMID24198499
PMCPMC3781724

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.