ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2017
Systems Biology to Support Nanomaterial Grouping.
Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Multi-Omics Approaches to Investigate Toxicological Effects in Macrophages.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Pooled it
- Understanding the immunological interactions of engineered nanomaterials: Role of the bio-corona.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2022Review
- Biomarkers of nanomaterials hazard from multi-layer data.Nature communications · 2022Article
- An in-depth multi-omics analysis in RLE-6TN rat alveolar epithelial cells allows for nanomaterial categorization.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2019Article
- Multi-omics analysis of ten carbon nanomaterials effects highlights cell type specific patterns of molecular regulation and adaptation.NanoImpact · 2018Article
- Comparison of conventional and advanced in vitro models in the toxicity testing of nanoparticles.Artificial cells, nanomedicine, and biotechnology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The assessment of potential health risks of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) is a challenging task due to the high number and great variety of already existing and newly emerging ENMs. Reliable grouping or categorization of ENMs with respect to hazards could help to facilitate prioritization and decision making for regulatory purposes. The development of grouping criteria, however, requires a broad and comprehensive data basis. A promising platform addressing this challenge is the systems biology approach. The different areas of systems biology, most prominently transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics, each of which provide a wealth of data that can be used to reveal novel biomarkers and biological pathways involved in the mode-of-action of ENMs. Combining such data with classical toxicological data would enable a more comprehensive understanding and hence might lead to more powerful and reliable prediction models. Physico-chemical data provide crucial information on the ENMs and need to be integrated, too. Overall statistical analysis should reveal robust grouping and categorization criteria and may ultimately help to identify meaningful biomarkers and biological pathways that sufficiently characterize the corresponding ENM subgroups. This chapter aims to give an overview on the different systems biology technologies and their current applications in the field of nanotoxicology, as well as to identify the existing challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28168668What 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.