Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27609141›Full record

ArticleParticle and fibre toxicology2016

Copper oxide nanoparticle toxicity profiling using untargeted metabolomics.

Matthew S P Boyles, Christina Ranninger, Roland Reischl, Marc Rurik, Richard Tessadri, Oliver Kohlbacher, Albert Duschl, Christian G Huber

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article 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 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. RNA mNanoscale research letters · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Micro- and Nanosized Substances Cause Different Autophagy-Related Responses.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Comparison ofNanoImpact · 2020
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthew S P BoylesDepartment of Molecular Biology, Division of Allergy and Immunology, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunner Strasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Christina RanningerDepartment of Molecular Biology, Division of Chemistry and Bioanalytics, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunner Strasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Roland ReischlDepartment of Molecular Biology, Division of Chemistry and Bioanalytics, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunner Strasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Marc RurikCenter for Bioinformatics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Richard TessadriFaculty of Geo- and Atmospheric Science, Institute of Mineralogy and Petrography, University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Oliver KohlbacherCenter for Bioinformatics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Albert DuschlDepartment of Molecular Biology, Division of Allergy and Immunology, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunner Strasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria. albert.duschl@sbg.ac.at.
Christian G HuberDepartment of Molecular Biology, Division of Chemistry and Bioanalytics, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunner Strasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria. c.huber@sbg.ac.at.
University of Salzburg · ATUniversity of Tübingen · DEUniversität Innsbruck · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rapidly increasing number of engineered nanoparticles (NPs), and products containing NPs, raises concerns for human exposure and safety. With this increasing, and ever changing, catalogue of NPs it is becoming more difficult to adequately assess the toxic potential of new materials in a timely fashion. It is therefore important to develop methods which can provide high-throughput screening of biological responses. The use of omics technologies, including metabolomics, can play a vital role in this process by providing relatively fast, comprehensive, and cost-effective assessment of cellular responses. These techniques thus provide the opportunity to identify specific toxicity pathways and to generate hypotheses on how to reduce or abolish toxicity.

resultsWe have used untargeted metabolome analysis to determine differentially expressed metabolites in human lung epithelial cells (A549) exposed to copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO NPs). Toxicity hypotheses were then generated based on the affected pathways, and critically tested using more conventional biochemical and cellular assays. CuO NPs induced regulation of metabolites involved in oxidative stress, hypertonic stress, and apoptosis. The involvement of oxidative stress was clarified more easily than apoptosis, which involved control experiments to confirm specific metabolites that could be used as standard markers for apoptosis; based on this we tentatively propose methylnicotinamide as a generic metabolic marker for apoptosis.

conclusionsOur findings are well aligned with the current literature on CuO NP toxicity. We thus believe that untargeted metabolomics profiling is a suitable tool for NP toxicity screening and hypothesis generation.

Indexed as

MetabolomicsApoptosisBiomarkersCell Line, TumorGlutathione PeroxidaseGlutathione Peroxidase GPX1Heme Oxygenase-1HumansInterleukin-8Lung NeoplasmsMetal NanoparticlesMicroscopy, Electron, TransmissionOxidative StressBiomarkersGlutathione PeroxidaseGlutathione Peroxidase GPX1GPX1 protein, humanHeme Oxygenase-1Interleukin-8Adverse outcome pathwaysApoptosisCopper oxide nanoparticlesOxidative stressToxicity profilingUntargeted metabolomics

Identifiers

PMID27609141
PMCPMC5017021
OpenAlexW2513381756

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.