Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27169501›Full record

SynthesisParticle and fibre toxicology2016

Meta-analysis of transcriptomic responses as a means to identify pulmonary disease outcomes for engineered nanomaterials.

Jake Nikota, Andrew Williams, Carole L Yauk, Håkan Wallin, Ulla Vogel, Sabina Halappanavar

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Particle and fibre toxicology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Neurotoxicology of Nanomaterials.Chemical research in toxicology · 2020
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Transcriptomics in toxicology.Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association · 2017
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jake NikotaEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0K9, Canada.
Andrew WilliamsEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0K9, Canada.
Carole L YaukEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0K9, Canada.
Håkan WallinNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lerso Parkallé 105, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
Ulla VogelNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lerso Parkallé 105, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
Sabina HalappanavarEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0K9, Canada. sabina.halappanavar@hc-sc.gc.ca.
Health Canada · CANational Research Centre for the Working Environment · DKUniversity College Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing use of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) of varying physical and chemical characteristics poses a great challenge for screening and assessing the potential pathology induced by these materials, necessitating novel toxicological approaches. Toxicogenomics measures changes in mRNA levels in cells and tissues following exposure to toxic substances. The resulting information on altered gene expression profiles, associated pathways, and the doses at which these changes occur, are used to identify the underlying mechanisms of toxicity and to predict disease outcomes. We evaluated the applicability of toxicogenomics data in identifying potential lung-specific (genomic datasets are currently available from experiments where mice have been exposed to various ENMs through this common route of exposure) disease outcomes following exposure to ENMs.

methodsSeven toxicogenomics studies describing mouse pulmonary responses over time following intra-tracheal exposure to increasing doses of carbon nanotubes (CNTs), carbon black, and titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles of varying properties were examined to understand underlying mechanisms of toxicity. mRNA profiles from these studies were compared to the publicly available datasets of 15 other mouse models of lung injury/diseases induced by various agents including bleomycin, ovalbumin, TNFα, lipopolysaccharide, bacterial infection, and welding fumes to delineate the implications of ENM-perturbed biological processes to disease pathogenesis in lungs.

resultsThe meta-analysis revealed two distinct clusters-one driven by TiO2 and the other by CNTs. Unsupervised clustering of the genes showing significant expression changes revealed that CNT response clustered with bleomycin injury and bacterial infection models, both of which are known to induce lung fibrosis, in a post-exposure-time dependent manner, irrespective of the CNT's physical-chemical properties. TiO2 samples clustered separately from CNTs and disease models.

conclusionsThese results indicate that in the absence of apical toxicity data, a tiered strategy beginning with short term, in vivo tissue transcriptomics profiling can effectively and efficiently screen new ENMs that have a higher probability of inducing pulmonary pathogenesis.

Indexed as

Air PollutantsAnimalsGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression RegulationHumansInhalation ExposureLungLung DiseasesNanostructuresPulmonary FibrosisRespiratory MucosaToxicogeneticsTranscriptomeAir PollutantsCarbon blackCarbon nanotubesLung diseaseLung fibrosisNanomaterialsTiO2 nanoparticlesToxicogenomics

Identifiers

PMID27169501
PMCPMC4865099
OpenAlexW2386383383

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.