Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27709892›Full record

ReviewBioconjugate chemistry2017

Current Challenges toward In Vitro Cellular Validation of Inorganic Nanoparticles.

Malou Henriksen-Lacey, Susana Carregal-Romero, Luis M Liz-Marzán

Abstract readReviewValidation Study
In one paragraph

Review in Bioconjugate chemistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Synthesis and Characterization of SeMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Internalization of Pegylated Er:YACS applied nano materials · 2023
    Article
  6. Nanomaterial-based contrast agents.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Membrane Phase Drives the Assembly of Gold Nanoparticles on Biomimetic Lipid Bilayers.The journal of physical chemistry. C, Nanomaterials and interfaces · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Nanoparticle-Plant Interactions: Two-Way Traffic.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. TiORSC advances · 2019
    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

3 authors.

Malou Henriksen-LaceyCIC biomaGUNE , Paseo de Miramón 182, 20014 Donostia - San Sebastián, Spain.
Susana Carregal-RomeroCIC biomaGUNE , Paseo de Miramón 182, 20014 Donostia - San Sebastián, Spain.
Luis M Liz-MarzánCIC biomaGUNE , Paseo de Miramón 182, 20014 Donostia - San Sebastián, Spain.

Funding

European Research Council 267867
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An impressive development has been achieved toward the production of well-defined "smart" inorganic nanoparticles, in which the physicochemical properties can be controlled and predicted to a high degree of accuracy. Nanoparticle design is indeed highly advanced, multimodal and multitargeting being the norm, yet we do not fully understand the obstacles that nanoparticles face when used in vivo. Increased cooperation between chemists and biochemists, immunologists and physicists, has allowed us to think outside the box, and we are slowly starting to understand the interactions that nanoparticles undergo under more realistic situations. Importantly, such an understanding involves awareness about the limitations when assessing the influence of such inorganic nanoparticles on biological entities and vice versa, as well as the development of new validation strategies.

Indexed as

AnimalsCoculture TechniquesComputer SimulationHumansInorganic ChemicalsMicrofluidicsNanoparticlesInorganic Chemicals

Identifiers

PMID27709892
PMCPMC5247775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.