Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25996496›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Comprehensive In Vitro Toxicity Testing of a Panel of Representative Oxide Nanomaterials: First Steps towards an Intelligent Testing Strategy.

Lucian Farcal, Fernando Torres Andón, Luisana Di Cristo, Bianca Maria Rotoli, Ovidio Bussolati, Enrico Bergamaschi, Agnieszka Mech, Nanna B Hartmann, Kirsten Rasmussen, Juan Riego-Sintes and 20 more

Abstract 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 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Environmental science. Nano · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Chronic effects of two rutile TiOParticle and fibre toxicology · 2022
    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

30 authors.

Lucian FarcalDivision of Molecular Toxicology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Fernando Torres AndónDivision of Molecular Toxicology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Luisana Di CristoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Bianca Maria RotoliDepartment of Biomedical, Biotechnological and Translational Sciences, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Ovidio BussolatiDepartment of Biomedical, Biotechnological and Translational Sciences, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Enrico BergamaschiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Agnieszka MechNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Nanna B HartmannNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy; Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Kirsten RasmussenNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Juan Riego-SintesNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Jessica PontiNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Agnieszka Kinsner-OvaskainenNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
François RossiNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Agnes OomenNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Peter BosNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Rui ChenChinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory for Biomedical Effects of Nanomaterials and Nanosafety, National Center for Nanoscience & Technology of China, Beijing, P. R. China.
Ru BaiChinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory for Biomedical Effects of Nanomaterials and Nanosafety, National Center for Nanoscience & Technology of China, Beijing, P. R. China.
Chunying ChenChinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory for Biomedical Effects of Nanomaterials and Nanosafety, National Center for Nanoscience & Technology of China, Beijing, P. R. China.
Louise RocksCentre for BioNano Interactions, School of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.
Norma FultonCentre for Nano Safety, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Bryony RossCentre for Nano Safety, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Gary HutchisonCentre for Nano Safety, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Lang TranInstitute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Sarah MuesBiomedizinisches Technologiezentrum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany.
Rainer OssigBiomedizinisches Technologiezentrum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany.
Jürgen SchnekenburgerBiomedizinisches Technologiezentrum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany.
Luisa CampagnoloDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Lucia VecchioneDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Antonio PietroiustiDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Bengt FadeelDivision of Molecular Toxicology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanomaterials (NMs) display many unique and useful physico-chemical properties. However, reliable approaches are needed for risk assessment of NMs. The present study was performed in the FP7-MARINA project, with the objective to identify and evaluate in vitro test methods for toxicity assessment in order to facilitate the development of an intelligent testing strategy (ITS). Six representative oxide NMs provided by the EC-JRC Nanomaterials Repository were tested in nine laboratories. The in vitro toxicity of NMs was evaluated in 12 cellular models representing 6 different target organs/systems (immune system, respiratory system, gastrointestinal system, reproductive organs, kidney and embryonic tissues). The toxicity assessment was conducted using 10 different assays for cytotoxicity, embryotoxicity, epithelial integrity, cytokine secretion and oxidative stress. Thorough physico-chemical characterization was performed for all tested NMs. Commercially relevant NMs with different physico-chemical properties were selected: two TiO2 NMs with different surface chemistry - hydrophilic (NM-103) and hydrophobic (NM-104), two forms of ZnO - uncoated (NM-110) and coated with triethoxycapryl silane (NM-111) and two SiO2 NMs produced by two different manufacturing techniques - precipitated (NM-200) and pyrogenic (NM-203). Cell specific toxicity effects of all NMs were observed; macrophages were the most sensitive cell type after short-term exposures (24-72h) (ZnO>SiO2>TiO2). Longer term exposure (7 to 21 days) significantly affected the cell barrier integrity in the presence of ZnO, but not TiO2 and SiO2, while the embryonic stem cell test (EST) classified the TiO2 NMs as potentially 'weak-embryotoxic' and ZnO and SiO2 NMs as 'non-embryotoxic'. A hazard ranking could be established for the representative NMs tested (ZnO NM-110 > ZnO NM-111 > SiO2 NM-203 > SiO2 NM-200 > TiO2 NM-104 > TiO2 NM-103). This ranking was different in the case of embryonic tissues, for which TiO2 displayed higher toxicity compared with ZnO and SiO2. Importantly, the in vitro methodology applied could identify cell- and NM-specific responses, with a low variability observed between different test assays. Overall, this testing approach, based on a battery of cellular systems and test assays, complemented by an exhaustive physico-chemical characterization of NMs, could be deployed for the development of an ITS suitable for risk assessment of NMs. This study also provides a rich source of data for modeling of NM effects.

Indexed as

Toxicity TestsAnimalsCell Culture TechniquesEmbryonic Stem CellsEpithelial CellsHumansInhibitory Concentration 50In Vitro TechniquesLeydig CellsMacrophagesMaleMiceNanostructuresOxidesSertoli CellsSilicon DioxideOxidesSilicon DioxideTitaniumtitanium dioxideZinc Oxide

Identifiers

PMID25996496
PMCPMC4440714

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.