Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26168153›Full record

ArticleACS nano2015

Cu Nanoparticles Have Different Impacts in Escherichia coli and Lactobacillus brevis than Their Microsized and Ionic Analogues.

Chitrada Kaweeteerawat, Chong Hyun Chang, Kevin R Roy, Rong Liu, Ruibin Li, Daniel Toso, Heidi Fischer, Angela Ivask, Zhaoxia Ji, Jeffrey I Zink and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in ACS nano, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Inhibition of the cGAS-STING pathwayChemical science · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Topographical nanostructures for physical sterilization.Drug delivery and translational research · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

17 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Chitrada Kaweeteerawat†University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Chong Hyun Chang†University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Kevin R Roy∥Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the Molecular Biology Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Rong Liu†University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Ruibin Li†University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Daniel Toso∇Biomedical Engineering Interdepartmental Program, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Heidi Fischer○Department of Biostatistics, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Angela Ivask†University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Zhaoxia Ji†University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Jeffrey I Zink†University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Z Hong Zhou‡California NanoSystems Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Guillaume Francois Chanfreau∥Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the Molecular Biology Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Donatello Telesca†University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Yoram Cohen†University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Patricia Ann Holden†University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Andre E Nel†University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
Hilary A Godwin†University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States.
University of California, Los Angeles · USCalifornia NanoSystems Institute · USUniversity of California, Santa Barbara · US

Funding

HIGH-END CRYOEM INSTRUMENT FOR UCLA ELECTRON IMAGING CTR FOR NANOMACHINES: AIDSS10RR023057 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ZHOU, Z HONG · 2006 to 2006
$1.6M
NCRR NIH HHS 1S10RR23057NCRR NIH HHS S10 RR023057
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Copper formulations have been used for decades for antimicrobial and antifouling applications. With the development of nanoformulations of copper that are more effective than their ionic and microsized analogues, a key regulatory question is whether these materials should be treated as new or existing materials. To address this issue, here we compare the magnitude and mechanisms of toxicity of a series of Cu species (at concentration ranging from 2 to 250 μg/mL), including nano Cu, nano CuO, nano Cu(OH)2 (CuPro and Kocide), micro Cu, micro CuO, ionic Cu(2+) (CuCl2 and CuSO4) in two species of bacteria (Escherichia coli and Lactobacillus brevis). The primary size of the particles studied ranged from 10 nm to 10 μm. Our results reveal that Cu and CuO nanoparticles (NPs) are more toxic than their microsized counterparts at the same Cu concentration, with toxicities approaching those of the ionic Cu species. Strikingly, these NPs showed distinct differences in their mode of toxicity when compared to the ionic and microsized Cu, highlighting the unique toxicity properties of materials at the nanoscale. In vitro DNA damage assays reveal that both nano Cu and microsized Cu are capable of causing complete degradation of plasmid DNA, but electron tomography results show that only nanoformulations of Cu are internalized as intact intracellular particles. These studies suggest that nano Cu at the concentration of 50 μg/mL may have unique genotoxicity in bacteria compared to ionic and microsized Cu.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsCopperEscherichia coliLevilactobacillus brevisMetal NanoparticlesAnti-Infective AgentsCopperantifoulingantimicrobialcopperecotoxitygenotoxicitynanoparticlenanotoxicology

Identifiers

PMID26168153
PMCPMC5698005
OpenAlexW2309191807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.