Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25551037›Full record

ArticleBeilstein journal of nanotechnology2014

The gut wall provides an effective barrier against nanoparticle uptake.

Heike Sinnecker, Thorsten Krause, Sabine Koelling, Ingmar Lautenschläger, Andreas Frey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Beilstein journal of nanotechnology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. TiOSmall (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Wear and Tear of Tyres: A Stealthy Source of Microplastics in the Environment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Nanoparticles for oral delivery: Design, evaluation and state-of-the-art.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2016
    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

5 authors.

Heike SinneckerDivision of Mucosal Immunology & Diagnostics, Priority Program Asthma & Allergy, Research Center Borstel, Leibniz Center for Medicine and Biosciences, Parkallee 22, Borstel, 23845, Germany, Airway Research Center North (ARCN), Member of the German Center for Lung Research.
Thorsten KrauseDivision of Mucosal Immunology & Diagnostics, Priority Program Asthma & Allergy, Research Center Borstel, Leibniz Center for Medicine and Biosciences, Parkallee 22, Borstel, 23845, Germany, Airway Research Center North (ARCN), Member of the German Center for Lung Research.
Sabine KoellingCentral Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry, Hamburg University of Technology, Eißendorfer Straße 38, Hamburg, 21073, Germany.
Ingmar LautenschlägerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Schwanenweg 21, Kiel, 24105, Germany.
Andreas FreyDivision of Mucosal Immunology & Diagnostics, Priority Program Asthma & Allergy, Research Center Borstel, Leibniz Center for Medicine and Biosciences, Parkallee 22, Borstel, 23845, Germany, Airway Research Center North (ARCN), Member of the German Center for Lung Research.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe omnipresence of nanoparticles (NPs) in numerous goods has led to a constant risk of exposure and inadvertent uptake for humans. This situation calls for thorough investigation of the consequences of NP intake. As the vast mucosa of the human gastrointestinal tract represents an attractive site of entry, we wanted to take a look on the fate that ingested NPs suffer in the gut. As a model to investigate NP uptake we used the isolated perfused rat small intestine. Differently sized fluorescent latex particles were used as exemplary anthropogenic NPs.

resultsThe particles were administered as bolus into the isolated intestine, and samples from the luminal, vascular and lymphatic compartments were collected over time. NP amounts in the different fluids were determined by fluorescence measurements. No particles could be detected in the vascular and lymphatic system. By contrast a major amount of NPs was found in luminal samples. Yet, a substantial share of particles could not be recovered in the fluid fractions, indicating a sink function of the intestinal tissue for NPs. A histological examination of the gut revealed that virtually no particles adhered to the epithelium or resided in the tissue, the bulk of particles seemed to be trapped in the mucus lining the gut tube. When this mucus was dissolved and removed from the gut almost the entire amount of particles missing could be recovered: over 95% of the given NPs were present in the two fractions, the luminal samples and the dissolved mucus. To foster NP uptake via an extended interaction time with the epithelium, the intestinal peristalsis was decelerated and the duration of the experiment was prolonged. Even under those conditions, no particle fluorescence was detected in the vascular and lymphatic samples.

conclusionWe could show that after intestinal exposure with a large dose of NPs the vast majority of NPs did obviously not come into contact with the epithelium but was either directly discarded from the gut or trapped in mucus. The healthy small intestinal tract evidently provides an effective barrier against NP uptake whereby the mucus film seems to play an important role.

Indexed as

barrierisolated intestinemucusnanoparticlesuptake

Identifiers

PMID25551037
PMCPMC4273221

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.