Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29350469›Full record

ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology2018

In vitro to in vivo benchmark dose comparisons to inform risk assessment of quantum dot nanomaterials.

Brittany A Weldon, William C Griffith, Tomomi Workman, David K Scoville, Terrance J Kavanagh, Elaine M Faustman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Aerosol physicochemical determinants of carbon black and ozone inhalation co-exposure induced pulmonary toxicity.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Approach towardEnvironmental science & technology · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Brittany A WeldonInstitute for Risk Analysis and Risk Communication, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
William C GriffithInstitute for Risk Analysis and Risk Communication, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Tomomi WorkmanInstitute for Risk Analysis and Risk Communication, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
David K ScovilleDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Terrance J KavanaghDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.ORCID 0000-0002-7213-103X
Elaine M FaustmanInstitute for Risk Analysis and Risk Communication, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

XENOBIOTIC BIOTRANSFORMATION AND DISPOSITIONP30ES007033 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Sheela Sathyanarayana · 1995 to 2026
$42.5M
Environmetal Pathology/Toxicology Training ProgramT32ES007032 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI FAUSTMAN, ELAINE M, ROSENFELD, MICHAEL E · 1985 to 2023
$10.7M
Biostatistics, Epidemiologic & Bioinformatic Training in Environmental HealthT32ES015459 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI June T. Spector · 2009 to 2026
$10.6M
Project 3: Integrative Risk Assessment Methods for Engineered NanomaterialsU19ES019545 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI KAVANAGH, TERRANCE J · 2010 to 2014
$5.6M
3D Testicular Cells Co-Culture Model for Reproductive and Developmental ToxicityU01FD004242 · FDA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI FAUSTMAN, ELAINE M · 2011 to 2012
$757k
FDA HHS U01 FD004242NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES007033NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES007032NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES015459NIEHS NIH HHS U19 ES019545
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Engineered nanomaterials are currently under review for their potential toxicity; however, their use in consumer/commercial products has continued to outpace risk assessments. In vitro methods may be utilized as tools to improve the efficiency of risk assessment approaches. We propose a framework to compare relationships between previously published in vitro and in vivo toxicity assessments of cadmium-selenium containing quantum dots (QDs) using benchmark dose (BMD) and dosimetric assessment methods. Although data were limited this approach was useful for identifying sensitive assays and strains. In vitro studies assessed effects of QDs in three pulmonary cell types across two mouse strains. Significant dose-response effects were modeled and a standardized method of BMD analysis was performed as a function of both exposure dose and dosimetric dose. In vivo studies assessed pulmonary effects of QD exposure across eight mouse strains. BMD analysis served as a basis for relative comparison with in vitro studies. We found consistent responses in common endpoints between in vitro and in vivo studies. Strain sensitivity was consistent between in vitro and in vivo studies, showing A/J mice more sensitive to QDs. Cell types were found to differentially take up QDs. Dosimetric adjustments identified similar sensitivity among cell types. Thus, BMD analysis can be used as an effective tool to compare the sensitivity of different strains, cell types, and assays to QDs. These methods allow for in vitro assays to be used to predict in vivo responses, improve the efficiency of in vivo studies, and allow for prioritization of nanomaterial assessments. This article is categorized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine.

Indexed as

Toxicity TestsAnimalsBenchmarkingBiomedical ResearchCell LineEnvironmental ExposureHumansMiceNanomedicineQuantum DotsRisk Assessmentbenchmark dosedosimetric assessmentengineered nanomaterialsgenes x environmentin vitro extrapolationnanotoxicologyquantum dots

Identifiers

PMID29350469
PMCPMC6002898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.