Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28937307›Full record

ReviewCritical reviews in toxicology2017

Weight of evidence analysis for assessing the genotoxic potential of carbon nanotubes.

Peter Møller, Nicklas Raun Jacobsen

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Critical reviews in toxicology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Peter Møllera Department of Public Health, Section of Environmental Health , University of Copenhagen , Copenhagen K , Denmark.
Nicklas Raun Jacobsenb The National Research Centre for the Working Environment , Copenhagen , Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carbon nanotube (CNT) is a nanomaterial that has received interest because of its high-tensile strength and low weight. Although CNTs differ substantially in physico-chemical properties, they share high aspect ratio which resembles that of asbestos and other fibers causing lung cancer and mesothelioma. One type of multi-walled CNTs (i.e. MWCNT-7) has been classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans by IARC (Group 2B) based on experimental animal data, whereas other types of MWCNTs and single-walled CNTs (SWCNT) could not be classified due to lack of data from epidemiologic studies and insufficient mechanistic evidence. Damage to DNA is considered to be a key mechanistic step in the development of fiber-induced cancer. Thus, the genotoxic potential can be a cornerstone in the evaluation of hazards of CNTs. The present study used a weight of evidence (WoE) analysis to evaluate the genotoxicity of different types of CNTs. Genotoxicity endpoints close to cancer (mutations and chromosome aberrations) and animal models had highest weight in the WoE analysis. Eight CNT materials out of 130, which had been assessed in several studies, were evaluated in the WoE analysis. The results demonstrated that MWCNT-7 has strongest WoE for a genotoxic hazard among the MWCNTs. Two types of SWCNTs have a similar WoE for genotoxicity as MWCNT-7. Several reference materials from the Joint Research Centre have less WoE for genotoxicity. The WoE analysis demonstrates a difference in genotoxicity for CNTs, but further research is required to unravel the physico-chemical characteristics that govern the differences in genotoxic hazard.

Indexed as

DNA DamageHazardous SubstancesHumansMutagenicity TestsNanotubes, CarbonHazardous SubstancesNanotubes, CarbonCarbon nanotubeschromosome damagecomet assaymeta-analysismutationsoxidative DNA damage

Identifiers

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.