ArticleScientific reports2017
A comparison between sphere and rod nanoparticles regarding their in vivo biological behavior and pharmacokinetics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 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
105 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engineering Functional Biomaterials for Targeted and Localized Cancer Drug Delivery: A Structure-Property-Performance Design Perspective.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Environmentally relevant aged nanoplastics amplify oxidative stress-associated inhalation toxicity and delay lung clearance.Redox biology · 2026Article
- Shape-Programmable Particles from Photocurable Poly(β-Amino Esters) for Drug Delivery Applications.Advanced functional materials · 2026Article
- Fine structural tuning of the assembly of elastin-collagen peptide conjugates with drug loading and manipulation of molecular interactions.Biomaterials science · 2026Article
- In Vivo Fate of Diatom-Based Nanocarriers: Advances, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Nanoparticle Clearance and New Horizons in Engineered Drug Delivery.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Review
- Nanoparticles in the Treatment of Renal Fibrosis.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Next-generation Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles: Precision-engineered Platforms for Ovarian Cancer Therapy.Current drug research reviews · 2026Review
- Recent advances in potential drug nanocarriers for CNS disorders: a review.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Review
- Emerging applications of nanotechnology in the treatment of acute kidney injury.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025Review
- ComparativeDalton transactions (Cambridge, England : 2003) · 2025Article
- Biological properties of ceragenin-coated metal nanoparticles - future challenges and perspectives in clinical practice.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025Review
- Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles as Drug Delivery Systems.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Lipid membrane-camouflaged biomimetic nanoparticle for MicroRNA based therapeutic delivery to intestinal epithelial cells.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Applications of Nanoparticles in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Ovarian Cancer.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Design Considerations for Organ-Selective Nanoparticles.ACS nano · 2025Review
- ZnO Nanoparticle-Infused Vaterite Coatings: A Novel Approach for Antimicrobial Titanium Implant Surfaces.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Review
- NIR-II scattering gold superclusters for intravascular optical coherence tomography molecular imaging.Nature nanotechnology · 2025Article
45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, spherical nanoparticles has been studied extensively on biomedical applications including bioimaging and biosensing, diagnostics and theranostics, but the effect of the shape of nanoparticles has received little attention. In the present study, we designed three different shaped fluorescent mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs), long rod nanoparticles (NLR), short rod nanoparticles (NSR), and spherical nanoparticles (NS) to systematically examine their behavior in vivo after oral administration. The results of the ex vivo optical imaging study in mice indicated that rod nanoparticles had a longer residence time in the gastrointestinal compared with spherical nanoparticles. The in vivo biodistribution showed that all the orally administered MSNs were mainly taken up by the liver, and kidney. NLR had a great capacity to overcoming rapid clearance by the RES and exhibited a longer circulation in the blood than NSR and NS. During renal excretion, the spherical nanoparticles were cleared faster than rod nanoparticles. In addition, it was also found that MSNs can be degraded in vivo and NSR were degraded faster than NLR and NS probably owing to their higher specific surface area. The pharmacokinetic results demonstrated that nifedipine(NI)-loaded NLR had a higher bioavailability than NI-loaded NSR and NS.
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.