Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25425420›Full record

ArticleParticle and fibre toxicology2014

Mechanisms of complement activation by dextran-coated superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoworms in mouse versus human serum.

Nirmal K Banda, Gaurav Mehta, Ying Chao, Guankui Wang, Swetha Inturi, Liliane Fossati-Jimack, Marina Botto, LinPing Wu, Seyed Moein Moghimi, Dmitri Simberg

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Particle and fibre toxicology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Cross-species protection suggestsInfection and immunity · 2025
    Article
  4. Magnetic Cell Targeting for Cardiovascular Tissue Engineering.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2025
    Review
  5. Exemplifying interspecies variation of liposomeActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Complement opsonization of nanoparticles: Differences between humans and preclinical species.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Physiological and Pathological Factors Affecting Drug Delivery to the Brain by Nanoparticles.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Toxicology of Nanoparticles in Drug Delivery.Current pathobiology reports · 2021
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Development of a Sensitive Assay to Screen NanoparticlesACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Nirmal K BandaDivision of Rheumatology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, 1775 Aurora Court, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. Nirmal.Banda@ucdenver.edu.
Gaurav MehtaDivision of Rheumatology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, 1775 Aurora Court, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. Gaurav.Mehta@ucdenver.edu.
Ying ChaoMoores UCSD Cancer Center, UC San Diego, 3855 Health Sciences Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA. yschao@gmail.com.
Guankui WangThe Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, 12850 East Montview Blvd., Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. GUANKUI.WANG@UCDENVER.EDU.
Swetha InturiThe Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, 12850 East Montview Blvd., Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. Swetha.Inturi@ucdenver.edu.
Liliane Fossati-JimackCentre for Complement & Inflammation Research (CCIR), Division of Immunology and Inflammation, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London, W12 ONN, UK. l.fossati@imperial.ac.uk.
Marina BottoCentre for Complement & Inflammation Research (CCIR), Division of Immunology and Inflammation, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London, W12 ONN, UK. m.botto@imperial.ac.uk.
LinPing WuCentre for Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Universitetsparken 2, University of Copenhagen, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. linping.wu@sund.ku.dk.
Seyed Moein MoghimiCentre for Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Universitetsparken 2, University of Copenhagen, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. moien.moghimi@sund.ku.dk.
Dmitri SimbergThe Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, 12850 East Montview Blvd., Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. dmitri.simberg@ucdenver.edu.
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USImperial College London · GBUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of California, San Diego · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe complement system is a key component of innate immunity implicated in the neutralization and clearance of invading pathogens. Dextran coated superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoparticle is a promising magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agent. However, dextran SPIO has been associated with significant number of complement-related side effects in patients and some agents have been discontinued from clinical use (e.g., Feridex™). In order to improve the safety of these materials, the mechanisms of complement activation by dextran-coated SPIO and the differences between mice and humans need to be fully understood.

methods20 kDa dextran coated SPIO nanoworms (SPIO NW) were synthesized using Molday precipitation procedure. In vitro measurements of C3 deposition on SPIO NW using sera genetically deficient for various components of the classical pathway (CP), lectin pathway (LP) or alternative pathway (AP) components were used to study mechanisms of mouse complement activation. In vitro measurements of fluid phase markers of complement activation C4d and Bb and the terminal pathway marker SC5b-C9 in normal and genetically deficient sera were used to study the mechanisms of human complement activation. Mouse data were analyzed by non-paired t-test, human data were analyzed by ANOVA followed by multiple comparisons with Student-Newman-Keuls test.

resultsIn mouse sera, SPIO NW triggered the complement activation via the LP, whereas the AP contributes via the amplification loop. No involvement of the CP was observed. In human sera the LP together with the direct enhancement of the AP turnover was responsible for the complement activation. In two samples out of six healthy donors there was also a binding of anti-dextran antibodies and C1q, suggesting activation via the CP, but that did not affect the total level of C3 deposition on the particles.

conclusionsThere were important differences and similarities in the complement activation by SPIO NW in mouse versus human sera. Understanding the mechanisms of immune recognition of nanoparticles in mouse and human systems has important preclinical and clinical implications and could help design more efficient and safe nano-formulations.

Indexed as

AdultAnimalsBiomarkersComplement ActivationComplement Pathway, AlternativeComplement Pathway, ClassicalComplement Pathway, Mannose-Binding LectinComplement System ProteinsContrast MediaDextransHumansMagnetite NanoparticlesMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMice, KnockoutBiomarkersComplement System ProteinsContrast MediaDextransferumoxidesMagnetite Nanoparticles

Identifiers

PMID25425420
PMCPMC4247556
OpenAlexW2030426793

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.