Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29178961›Full record

ReviewParticle and fibre toxicology2017

The unrecognized occupational relevance of the interaction between engineered nanomaterials and the gastro-intestinal tract: a consensus paper from a multidisciplinary working group.

Antonio Pietroiusti, Enrico Bergamaschi, Marcello Campagna, Luisa Campagnolo, Giuseppe De Palma, Sergio Iavicoli, Veruscka Leso, Andrea Magrini, Michele Miragoli, Paola Pedata and 2 more

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Particle and fibre toxicology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Effect of TiOBiological trace element research · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Four Types of TiOFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

12 authors.

Antonio PietroiustiDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy. pietroiu@uniroma2.it.ORCID 0000-0002-4056-1801
Enrico BergamaschiDepartment of Sciences and Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Marcello CampagnaDepartment of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Luisa CampagnoloDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe De PalmaDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, Section of Public Health and Human Sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Sergio IavicoliDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, Italian Workers' Compensation Authority (INAIL), Rome, Italy.
Veruscka LesoDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Andrea MagriniDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Michele MiragoliDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Paola PedataDepartment of Experimental Medicine- Section of Hygiene, Occupational Medicine and Forensic Medicine, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy.
Leonardo PalombiDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Ivo IavicoliDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a fundamental gap of knowledge on the health effects caused by the interaction of engineered nanomaterials (ENM) with the gastro-intestinal tract (GIT). This is partly due to the incomplete knowledge of the complex physical and chemical transformations that ENM undergo in the GIT, and partly to the widespread belief that GIT health effects of ENM are much less relevant than pulmonary effects. However, recent experimental findings, considering the role of new players in gut physiology (e.g. the microbiota), shed light on several outcomes of the interaction ENM/GIT. Along with this new information, there is growing direct and indirect evidence that not only ingested ENM, but also inhaled ENM may impact on the GIT. This fact, which may have relevant implications in occupational setting, has never been taken into consideration. This review paper summarizes the opinions and findings of a multidisciplinary team of experts, focusing on two main aspects of the issue: 1) ENM interactions within the GIT and their possible consequences, and 2) relevance of gastro-intestinal effects of inhaled ENMs. Under point 1, we analyzed how luminal gut-constituents, including mucus, may influence the adherence of ENM to cell surfaces in a size-dependent manner, and how intestinal permeability may be affected by different physico-chemical characteristics of ENM. Cytotoxic, oxidative, genotoxic and inflammatory effects on different GIT cells, as well as effects on microbiota, are also discussed. Concerning point 2, recent studies highlight the relevance of gastro-intestinal handling of inhaled ENM, showing significant excretion with feces of inhaled ENM and supporting the hypothesis that GIT should be considered an important target of extrapulmonary effects of inhaled ENM.

conclusionsIn spite of recent insights on the relevance of the GIT as a target for toxic effects of nanoparticles, there is still a major gap in knowledge regarding the impact of the direct versus indirect oral exposure. This fact probably applies also to larger particles and dictates careful consideration in workers, who carry the highest risk of exposure to particulate matter.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthAnimalsGastrointestinal MicrobiomeGastrointestinal TractHumansInhalation ExposureIntestinal AbsorptionNanostructuresOccupational ExposureRisk AssessmentDirect toxicityGastrointestinal tractIndirect toxicityIngested nanoparticlesInhaled nanoparticlesMicrobiotaWorkers’ exposure

Identifiers

PMID29178961
PMCPMC5702111

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.