ReviewNano convergence2016
Design, challenge, and promise of stimuli-responsive nanoantibiotics.
Review in Nano convergence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial nanomaterials at the nanoscale: design principles, mechanisms, and global challenges.Nanoscale advances · 2026Review
- Unveiling the nanoworld of antimicrobial resistance: integrating nature and nanotechnology.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
- Antimicrobial resistance expansion in pathogens: a review of current mitigation strategies and advances towards innovative therapy.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2023Review
- Review
- Diatomaceous earth/zinc oxide micro-composite assisted antibiotics in fungal therapy.Nano convergence · 2021Article
- Bismuth nanoparticles obtained by a facile synthesis method exhibit antimicrobial activity againstBMC biomedical engineering · 2020Article
- Recent Developments in Antibacterial Therapy: Focus on Stimuli-Responsive Drug-Delivery Systems and Therapeutic Nanoparticles.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Article
- The Attack of the Smart Particles: Should Bacteria Be Afraid?ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past few years, there have been calls for novel antimicrobials to combat the rise of drug-resistant bacteria. While some promising new discoveries have met this call, it is not nearly enough. The major problem is that although these new promising antimicrobials serve as a short-term solution, they lack the potential to provide a long-term solution. The conventional method of creating new antibiotics relies heavily on the discovery of an antimicrobial compound from another microbe. This paradigm of development is flawed due to the fact that microbes can easily transfer a resistant mechanism if faced with an environmental pressure. Furthermore, there has been some evidence to indicate that the environment of the microbe can provide a hint as to their virulence. Because of this, the use of materials with antimicrobial properties has been garnering interest. Nanoantibiotics, (nAbts), provide a new way to circumvent the current paradigm of antimicrobial discovery and presents a novel mechanism of attack not found in microbes yet; which may lead to a longer-term solution against drug-resistance formation. This allows for environment-specific activation and efficacy of the nAbts but may also open up and create new design methods for various applications. These nAbts provide promise, but there is still ample work to be done in their development. This review looks at possible ways of improving and optimizing nAbts by making them stimuli-responsive, then consider the challenges ahead, and industrial applications.Graphical abstractA graphic detailing how the current paradigm of antibiotic discovery can be circumvented by the use of nanoantibiotics.
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.