Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26517371›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Dispersion Behaviour of Silica Nanoparticles in Biological Media and Its Influence on Cellular Uptake.

Blanka Halamoda-Kenzaoui, Mara Ceridono, Pascal Colpo, Andrea Valsesia, Patricia Urbán, Isaac Ojea-Jiménez, Sabrina Gioria, Douglas Gilliland, François Rossi, Agnieszka Kinsner-Ovaskainen

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 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Quantitative Particle Uptake by Cells as Analyzed by Different Methods.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Mapping of the available standards against the regulatory needs for nanomedicines.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Blanka Halamoda-KenzaouiNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Mara CeridonoNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Pascal ColpoNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Andrea ValsesiaNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Patricia UrbánNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Isaac Ojea-JiménezNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Sabrina GioriaNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Douglas GillilandNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, (VA), Italy.
François RossiNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Agnieszka Kinsner-OvaskainenNanobiosciences Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, (VA), Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given the increasing variety of manufactured nanomaterials, suitable, robust, standardized in vitro screening methods are needed to study the mechanisms by which they can interact with biological systems. The in vitro evaluation of interactions of nanoparticles (NPs) with living cells is challenging due to the complex behaviour of NPs, which may involve dissolution, aggregation, sedimentation and formation of a protein corona. These variable parameters have an influence on the surface properties and the stability of NPs in the biological environment and therefore also on the interaction of NPs with cells. We present here a study using 30 nm and 80 nm fluorescently-labelled silicon dioxide NPs (Rubipy-SiO2 NPs) to evaluate the NPs dispersion behaviour up to 48 hours in two different cellular media either supplemented with 10% of serum or in serum-free conditions. Size-dependent differences in dispersion behaviour were observed and the influence of the living cells on NPs stability and deposition was determined. Using flow cytometry and fluorescence microscopy techniques we studied the kinetics of the cellular uptake of Rubipy-SiO2 NPs by A549 and CaCo-2 cells and we found a correlation between the NPs characteristics in cell media and the amount of cellular uptake. Our results emphasize how relevant and important it is to evaluate and to monitor the size and agglomeration state of nanoparticles in the biological medium, in order to interpret correctly the results of the in vitro toxicological assays.

Indexed as

Caco-2 CellsCell LineCell ProliferationCell SurvivalCulture MediaFlow CytometryHumansNanoparticlesParticle SizeSilicon DioxideSurface PropertiesCulture MediaSilicon Dioxide

Identifiers

PMID26517371
PMCPMC4627765

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.