Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25473288›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nanomedicine2014

Cytotoxicity and antibacterial activity of gold-supported cerium oxide nanoparticles.

K Suresh Babu, M Anandkumar, T Y Tsai, T H Kao, B Stephen Inbaraj, B H Chen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nanomedicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Plant Gel-Mediated Synthesis of Gold-Coated Nanoceria UsingJournal of functional biomaterials · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Graphene nanoplatelets/CeOApplied nanoscience · 2022
    Article
  12. On Placental Toxicology Studies and Cerium Dioxide Nanoparticles.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

K Suresh BabuCentre for Nano Sciences and Technology, Madanjeet School of Green Energy Technologies, Pondicherry University, Kalapet, India.
M AnandkumarCentre for Nano Sciences and Technology, Madanjeet School of Green Energy Technologies, Pondicherry University, Kalapet, India.
T Y TsaiDepartment of Food Science, Fu Jen University, Taipei, Taiwan.
T H KaoDepartment of Food Science, Fu Jen University, Taipei, Taiwan.
B Stephen InbarajDepartment of Food Science, Fu Jen University, Taipei, Taiwan.
B H ChenDepartment of Food Science, Fu Jen University, Taipei, Taiwan ; Graduate Institute of Medicine, Fu Jen University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Fu Jen Catholic University · TWPondicherry University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCerium oxide nanoparticles (CeO2) have been shown to be a novel therapeutic in many biomedical applications. Gold (Au) nanoparticles have also attracted widespread interest due to their chemical stability and unique optical properties. Thus, decorating Au on CeO2 nanoparticles would have potential for exploitation in the biomedical field.

methodsIn the present work, CeO2 nanoparticles synthesized by a chemical combustion method were supported with 3.5% Au (Au/CeO2) by a deposition-precipitation method. The as-synthesized Au, CeO2, and Au/CeO2 nanoparticles were evaluated for antibacterial activity and cytotoxicity in RAW 264.7 normal cells and A549 lung cancer cells.

resultsThe as-synthesized nanoparticles were characterized by X-ray diffraction, scanning and transmission electron microscopy, and ultraviolet-visible measurements. The X-ray diffraction study confirmed the formation of cubic fluorite-structured CeO2 nanoparticles with a size of 10 nm. All synthesized nanoparticles were nontoxic towards RAW 264.7 cells at doses of 0-1,000 μM except for Au at >100 μM. For A549 cancer cells, Au/CeO2 had the highest inhibitory effect, followed by both Au and CeO2 which showed a similar effect at 500 and 1,000 μM. Initial binding of nanoparticles occurred through localized positively charged sites in A549 cells as shown by a shift in zeta potential from positive to negative after 24 hours of incubation. A dose-dependent elevation in reactive oxygen species indicated that the pro-oxidant activity of the nanoparticles was responsible for their cytotoxicity towards A549 cells. In addition, cellular uptake seen on transmission electron microscopic images indicated predominant localization of nanoparticles in the cytoplasmic matrix and mitochondrial damage due to oxidative stress. With regard to antibacterial activity, both types of nanoparticles had the strongest inhibitory effect on Bacillus subtilis in monoculture systems, followed by Salmonella enteritidis, Escherichia coli, and Staphylococcus aureus, while, in coculture tests with Lactobacillus plantarum, S. aureus was inhibited to a greater extent than the other bacteria.

conclusionGold-supported CeO2 nanoparticles may be a potential nanomaterial for in vivo application owing to their biocompatible and antibacterial properties.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaCell LineCell SurvivalCeriumColony Count, MicrobialGoldMetal NanoparticlesMiceMicroscopy, Electron, TransmissionReactive Oxygen SpeciesX-Ray DiffractionAnti-Bacterial Agentsceric oxideCeriumGoldReactive Oxygen Speciesantibacterial activitycellular uptakecerium oxide nanoparticlescytotoxicitygold supported cerium oxidereactive oxygen species

Identifiers

PMID25473288
PMCPMC4251533
OpenAlexW1983829802

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.