Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25615613›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Time-dependent subcellular distribution and effects of carbon nanotubes in lungs of mice.

Carsten Købler, Sarah S Poulsen, Anne T Saber, Nicklas R Jacobsen, Håkan Wallin, Carole L Yauk, Sabina Halappanavar, Ulla Vogel, Klaus Qvortrup, Kristian Mølhave

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evaluation ofIranian journal of biotechnology · 2021
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 2 countries.

Carsten KøblerDTU Nanotech, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark; DTU CEN, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Sarah S PoulsenNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Science, Systems and Models, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
Anne T SaberNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Nicklas R JacobsenNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Håkan WallinNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark; Institute of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Carole L YaukEnvironmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Health Canada, Ontario, Canada.
Sabina HalappanavarEnvironmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Health Canada, Ontario, Canada.
Ulla VogelDTU Nanotech, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark; National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Klaus QvortrupDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, CFIM, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kristian MølhaveDTU Nanotech, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
National Research Centre for the Working Environment · DKHealth Canada · CATechnical University of Denmark · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

methodsPulmonary deposited carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are cleared very slowly from the lung, but there is limited information on how CNTs interact with the lung tissue over time. To address this, three different multiwalled CNTs were intratracheally instilled into female C57BL/6 mice: one short (850 nm) and tangled, and two longer (4 μm and 5.7 μm) and thicker. We assessed the cellular interaction with these CNTs using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) 1, 3 and 28 days after instillation.

resultsTEM analysis revealed that the three CNTs followed the same overall progression pattern over time. Initially, CNTs were taken up either by a diffusion mechanism or via endocytosis. Then CNTs were agglomerated in vesicles in macrophages. Lastly, at 28 days post-exposure, evidence suggesting CNT escape from vesicle enclosures were found. The longer and thicker CNTs more often perturbed and escaped vesicular enclosures in macrophages compared to the smaller CNTs. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) showed that the CNT exposure induced both an eosinophil influx and also eosinophilic crystalline pneumonia.

conclusionTwo very different types of multiwalled CNTs had very similar pattern of cellular interactions in lung tissue, with the longer and thicker CNTs resulting in more severe effects in terms of eosinophil influx and incidence of eosinophilic crystalline pneumonia (ECP).

Indexed as

AnimalsBronchoalveolar Lavage FluidFemaleLungMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMicroscopy, Electron, TransmissionNanotubes, CarbonParticle SizePulmonary EosinophiliaTime FactorsNanotubes, Carbon

Identifiers

PMID25615613
PMCPMC4304811
OpenAlexW2057834556

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.