Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25733836›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nanomedicine2015

Internalization and fate of silica nanoparticles in C2C12 skeletal muscle cells: evidence of a beneficial effect on myoblast fusion.

Sylvie Poussard, Marion Decossas, Olivier Le Bihan, Stéphane Mornet, Grégoire Naudin, Olivier Lambert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nanomedicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Nanomedicine, a valuable tool for skeletal muscle disorders: Challenges, promises, and limitations.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Nanomaterial for Skeletal Muscle Regeneration.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors.

Sylvie PoussardInstitute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, University of Bordeaux, UMR5248, Pessac, France ; Institute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, UMR5248, Pessac, France.
Marion DecossasInstitute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, University of Bordeaux, UMR5248, Pessac, France ; Institute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, UMR5248, Pessac, France.
Olivier Le BihanInstitute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, University of Bordeaux, UMR5248, Pessac, France ; Institute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, UMR5248, Pessac, France.
Stéphane MornetICMCB, Institut de Chimie de la Matière Condensée de Bordeaux, CNRS UPR9048, Université de Bordeaux, Pessac, France.
Grégoire NaudinInstitute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, University of Bordeaux, UMR5248, Pessac, France ; Institute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, UMR5248, Pessac, France.
Olivier LambertInstitute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, University of Bordeaux, UMR5248, Pessac, France ; Institute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institute of Chemistry and Biology of Membranes and Nanoobjects, UMR5248, Pessac, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of silica nanoparticles for their cellular uptake capability opens up new fields in biomedical research. Among the toxicological effects associated with their internalization, silica nanoparticles induce apoptosis that has been recently reported as a biochemical cue required for muscle regeneration. To assess whether silica nanoparticles could affect muscle regeneration, we used the C2C12 muscle cell line to study the uptake of fluorescently labeled NPs and their cellular trafficking over a long period. Using inhibitors of endocytosis, we determined that the NP uptake was an energy-dependent process mainly involving macropinocytosis and clathrin-mediated pathway. NPs were eventually clustered in lysosomal structures. Myoblasts containing NPs were capable of differentiation into myotubes, and after 7 days, electron microscopy revealed that the NPs remained primarily within lysosomes. The presence of NPs stimulated the formation of myotubes in a dose-dependent manner. NP internalization induced an increase of apoptotic myoblasts required for myoblast fusion. At noncytotoxic doses, the NP uptake by skeletal muscle cells did not prevent their differentiation into myotubes but, instead, enhanced the cell fusion.

Indexed as

Muscle Fibers, SkeletalMyoblastsSilicon DioxideCell DifferentiationCell LineHumansNanoparticlesSilicon Dioxideapoptosiscell encapsulationmusclenanoparticlesilicatransmission electron microscopy

Identifiers

PMID25733836
PMCPMC4340375

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.