Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26080392›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2016

Effects of Laser Printer-Emitted Engineered Nanoparticles on Cytotoxicity, Chemokine Expression, Reactive Oxygen Species, DNA Methylation, and DNA Damage: A Comprehensive in Vitro Analysis in Human Small Airway Epithelial Cells, Macrophages, and Lymphoblasts.

Sandra V Pirela, Isabelle R Miousse, Xiaoyan Lu, Vincent Castranova, Treye Thomas, Yong Qian, Dhimiter Bello, Lester Kobzik, Igor Koturbash, Philip Demokritou

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The Effect of Nanomaterials on DNA Methylation: A Review.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Sandra V PirelaDepartment of Environmental Health, Center for Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Isabelle R Miousse
Xiaoyan Lu
Vincent Castranova
Treye Thomas
Yong Qian
Dhimiter Bello
Lester Kobzik
Igor Koturbash
Philip Demokritou
Harvard University · USUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · USNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health · USUnited States Consumer Product Safety Commission · USUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell · USWest Virginia University · US

Funding

Training Program in Molecular and Integrative Physiological SciencesT32HL007118 · NHLBI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI LU, QUAN · 1985 to 2025
$14.3M
Arkansas Center for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR000039 · NCATS · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI BECK, CORNELIA MARIE, JAMES, LAURA P · 2012 to 2014
$10.0M
Arkansas Center for Clinical Translational ResearchKL2TR000063 · NCATS · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI BECK, CORNELIA MARIE, JAMES, LAURA P · 2012 to 2014
$459k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000063NCATS NIH HHS KL2TR000063NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000039NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR000039NHLBI NIH HHS HL007118NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007118
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEngineered nanomaterials (ENMs) incorporated into toner formulations of printing equipment become airborne during consumer use. Although information on the complex physicochemical and toxicological properties of both toner powders and printer-emitted particles (PEPs) continues to grow, most toxicological studies have not used the actual PEPs but rather have primarily used raw toner powders, which are not representative of current exposures experienced at the consumer level during printing.

objectivesWe assessed the biological responses of a panel of human cell lines to PEPs.

methodsThree physiologically relevant cell lines--small airway epithelial cells (SAECs), macrophages (THP-1 cells), and lymphoblasts (TK6 cells)--were exposed to PEPs at a wide range of doses (0.5-100 μg/mL) corresponding to human inhalation exposure durations at the consumer level of 8 hr or more. Following treatment, toxicological parameters reflecting distinct mechanisms were evaluated.

resultsPEPs caused significant membrane integrity damage, an increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, and an increase in pro-inflammatory cytokine release in different cell lines at doses equivalent to exposure durations from 7.8 to 1,500 hr. Furthermore, there were differences in methylation patterns that, although not statistically significant, demonstrate the potential effects of PEPs on the overall epigenome following exposure.

conclusionsThe in vitro findings obtained in this study suggest that laser printer-emitted engineered nanoparticles may be deleterious to lung cells and provide preliminary evidence of epigenetic modifications that might translate to pulmonary disorders.

Indexed as

DNA DamageCell LineChemokinesCytotoxinsDNA MethylationEpithelial CellsHumansLungLymphocytesMacrophagesNanoparticlesPrintingReactive Oxygen SpeciesChemokinesCytotoxinsReactive Oxygen Species

Identifiers

PMID26080392
PMCPMC4749083
OpenAlexW2338409999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.