Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25759581›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nanomedicine2015

In vitro and in vivo effects of graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide on glioblastoma.

Sławomir Jaworski, Ewa Sawosz, Marta Kutwin, Mateusz Wierzbicki, Mateusz Hinzmann, Marta Grodzik, Anna Winnicka, Ludwika Lipińska, Karolina Włodyga, Andrè Chwalibog

Open access · goldAbstract 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 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 123 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Carbon Nanomaterials: Emerging Roles in Immuno-Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Toxicology reports · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sławomir JaworskiWarsaw University of Life Science, Faculty of Animal Science, Division of Biotechnology and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Ewa SawoszWarsaw University of Life Science, Faculty of Animal Science, Division of Biotechnology and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Marta KutwinWarsaw University of Life Science, Faculty of Animal Science, Division of Biotechnology and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Mateusz WierzbickiWarsaw University of Life Science, Faculty of Animal Science, Division of Biotechnology and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Mateusz HinzmannWarsaw University of Life Science, Faculty of Animal Science, Division of Biotechnology and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Marta GrodzikWarsaw University of Life Science, Faculty of Animal Science, Division of Biotechnology and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Anna WinnickaDepartment of Pathology and Veterinary Diagnostics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Ludwika LipińskaInstitute of Electronic Materials Technology, Warsaw, Poland.
Karolina WłodygaWarsaw University of Life Science, Faculty of Animal Science, Division of Biotechnology and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Andrè ChwalibogUniversity of Copenhagen, Department of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Institute of Electronic Materials Technology · PLUniversity of Copenhagen · DKWarsaw University of Life Sciences · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Graphene and its related counterparts are considered the future of advanced nanomaterials owing to their exemplary properties. However, information about their toxicity and biocompatibility is limited. The objective of this study is to evaluate the toxicity of graphene oxide (GO) and reduced graphene oxide (rGO) platelets, using U87 and U118 glioma cell lines for an in vitro model and U87 tumors cultured on chicken embryo chorioallantoic membrane for an in vivo model. The in vitro investigation consisted of structural analysis of GO and rGO platelets using transmission electron microscopy, evaluation of cell morphology and ultrastructure, assessment of cell viability by XTT assay, and investigation of cell proliferation by BrdU assay. Toxicity in U87 glioma tumors was evaluated by calculation of weight and volume of tumors and analyses of ultrastructure, histology, and protein expression. The in vitro results indicate that GO and rGO enter glioma cells and have different cytotoxicity. Both types of platelets reduced cell viability and proliferation with increasing doses, but rGO was more toxic than GO. The mass and volume of tumors were reduced in vivo after injection of GO and rGO. Moreover, the level of apoptotic markers increased in rGO-treated tumors. We show that rGO induces cell death mostly through apoptosis, indicating the potential applicability of graphene in cancer therapy.

Indexed as

GlioblastomaGraphiteOxidesAnimalsCell LineCell ProliferationCell SurvivalChick EmbryoChickensHumansNanostructuresGraphiteOxidesapoptosisgliomagraphene oxidereduced graphene oxidetoxicity

Identifiers

PMID25759581
PMCPMC4346365
OpenAlexW2075927607

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.