Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24618833›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Widespread nanoparticle-assay interference: implications for nanotoxicity testing.

Kimberly J Ong, Tyson J MacCormack, Rhett J Clark, James D Ede, Van A Ortega, Lindsey C Felix, Michael K M Dang, Guibin Ma, Hicham Fenniri, Jonathan G C Veinot and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Toxicity Evaluation of TiOFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Amine-Functionalized and Gold-Decorated Amine-Functionalized TiOInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  11. Application of the Comet Assay in Advanced In Vitro Models.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 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

11 authors.

Kimberly J OngDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Tyson J MacCormackDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada.
Rhett J ClarkDepartment of Chemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
James D EdeDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Van A OrtegaDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Lindsey C FelixDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Michael K M DangDepartment of Chemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Guibin MaDepartment of Chemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Hicham FenniriDepartment of Chemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; National Institute of Nanotechnology, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jonathan G C VeinotDepartment of Chemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Greg G GossDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evaluation of engineered nanomaterial safety has been hindered by conflicting reports demonstrating differential degrees of toxicity with the same nanoparticles. The unique properties of these materials increase the likelihood that they will interfere with analytical techniques, which may contribute to this phenomenon. We tested the potential for: 1) nanoparticle intrinsic fluorescence/absorbance, 2) interactions between nanoparticles and assay components, and 3) the effects of adding both nanoparticles and analytes to an assay, to interfere with the accurate assessment of toxicity. Silicon, cadmium selenide, titanium dioxide, and helical rosette nanotubes each affected at least one of the six assays tested, resulting in either substantial over- or under-estimations of toxicity. Simulation of realistic assay conditions revealed that interference could not be predicted solely by interactions between nanoparticles and assay components. Moreover, the nature and degree of interference cannot be predicted solely based on our current understanding of nanomaterial behaviour. A literature survey indicated that ca. 95% of papers from 2010 using biochemical techniques to assess nanotoxicity did not account for potential interference of nanoparticles, and this number had not substantially improved in 2012. We provide guidance on avoiding and/or controlling for such interference to improve the accuracy of nanotoxicity assessments.

Indexed as

Biological AssayHumansNanoparticlesParticle Size

Identifiers

PMID24618833
PMCPMC3949728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.