Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28555135›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2017

Why the Immune System Should Be Concerned by Nanomaterials?

Marc J Pallardy, Isabelle Turbica, Armelle Biola-Vidamment

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Cerebral Aneurysm: Filling the Gap Between Pathophysiology and Nanocarriers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Advances of nanotechnology for intracerebral hemorrhage therapy.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marc J Pallardy"Inflammation, Chimiokines and Immunopathology", INSERM UMR 996, Univ Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Châtenay-Malabry, France.
Isabelle Turbica"Inflammation, Chimiokines and Immunopathology", INSERM UMR 996, Univ Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Châtenay-Malabry, France.
Armelle Biola-Vidamment"Inflammation, Chimiokines and Immunopathology", INSERM UMR 996, Univ Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Châtenay-Malabry, France.
Inserm · FRUniversité Paris-Saclay · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Particles possess huge specific surface area and therefore nanomaterials exhibit unique characteristics, such as special physical properties and chemical hyper-reactivity, which make them particularly attractive but also raise numerous questions concerning their safety. Interactions of nanomaterials with the immune system can potentially lead to immunosuppression, hypersensitivity (allergy), immunogenicity and autoimmunity, involving both innate and adaptive immune responses. Inherent physical and chemical NP characteristics may influence their immunotoxicity, i.e., the adverse effects that can result from exposure. This review will focus on the possible interaction of nanomaterials including protein aggregates with the innate immune system with specific emphasis on antigen-presenting cells, i.e., dendritic cells, macrophages and monocytes.

Indexed as

danger signalsdendritic cellsinnate immunitymacrophagesnanoparticles

Identifiers

PMID28555135
PMCPMC5431153
OpenAlexW2616670430

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.