ReviewMutagenesis2017
Emerging metrology for high-throughput nanomaterial genotoxicology.
Review in Mutagenesis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploiting Nanomedicine for Cancer Polychemotherapy: Recent Advances and Clinical Applications.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Seminars in immunology special issue: Nutrition, microbiota and immunity The unexplored microbes in health and disease.Seminars in immunology · 2023Review
- The State of the Art and Challenges of In Vitro Methods for Human Hazard Assessment of Nanomaterials in the Context of Safe-by-Design.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Review
- Nanosafety: An Evolving Concept to Bring the Safest Possible Nanomaterials to Society and Environment.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to Human Therapeutic Nanoparticle Development.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Particle Safety Assessment in Additive Manufacturing: From Exposure Risks to Advanced Toxicology Testing.Frontiers in toxicology · 2022Review
- Primary and Secondary Genotoxicity of Nanoparticles: Establishing a Co-Culture Protocol for Assessing Micronucleus Using Flow Cytometry.Frontiers in toxicology · 2022Article
- Suitability of the In Vitro Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Test for Genotoxicity Assessment of TiOInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials to be applied in the food and feed chain: human and animal health.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021Article
- Article
- Novel Methods and Approaches for Safety Evaluation of Nanoparticle Formulations: A Focus TowardsFrontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- Adverse Outcome Pathway Development for Assessment of Lung Carcinogenicity by Nanoparticles.Frontiers in toxicology · 2021Article
- Genotoxicity of Nanomaterials: Advanced In Vitro Models and High Throughput Methods for Human Hazard Assessment-A Review.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Applications of CometChip for Environmental Health Studies.Chemical research in toxicology · 2020Review
- Genotoxicity of TiONanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- ToxTracker Reporter Cell Lines as a Tool for Mechanism-Based (geno)Toxicity Screening of Nanoparticles-Metals, Oxides and Quantum Dots.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Micronuclei Detection by Flow Cytometry as a High-Throughput Approach for the Genotoxicity Testing of Nanomaterials.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Genotoxic and mutagenic properties of Ni and NiO nanoparticles investigated by comet assay, γ-H2AX staining, Hprt mutation assay and ToxTracker reporter cell lines.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2018Article
- Advantages of evaluating γH2AX induction in non-clinical drug development.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid development of the engineered nanomaterial (ENM) manufacturing industry has accelerated the incorporation of ENMs into a wide variety of consumer products across the globe. Unintentionally or not, some of these ENMs may be introduced into the environment or come into contact with humans or other organisms resulting in unexpected biological effects. It is thus prudent to have rapid and robust analytical metrology in place that can be used to critically assess and/or predict the cytotoxicity, as well as the potential genotoxicity of these ENMs. Many of the traditional genotoxicity test methods [e.g. unscheduled DNA synthesis assay, bacterial reverse mutation (Ames) test, etc.,] for determining the DNA damaging potential of chemical and biological compounds are not suitable for the evaluation of ENMs, due to a variety of methodological issues ranging from potential assay interferences to problems centered on low sample throughput. Recently, a number of sensitive, high-throughput genotoxicity assays/platforms (CometChip assay, flow cytometry/micronucleus assay, flow cytometry/γ-H2AX assay, automated 'Fluorimetric Detection of Alkaline DNA Unwinding' (FADU) assay, ToxTracker reporter assay) have been developed, based on substantial modifications and enhancements of traditional genotoxicity assays. These new assays have been used for the rapid measurement of DNA damage (strand breaks), chromosomal damage (micronuclei) and for detecting upregulated DNA damage signalling pathways resulting from ENM exposures. In this critical review, we describe and discuss the fundamental measurement principles and measurement endpoints of these new assays, as well as the modes of operation, analytical metrics and potential interferences, as applicable to ENM exposures. An unbiased discussion of the major technical advantages and limitations of each assay for evaluating and predicting the genotoxic potential of ENMs is also provided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.