Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29695956›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in systems neuroscience2018

Interfacing Graphene-Based Materials With Neural Cells.

Mattia Bramini, Giulio Alberini, Elisabetta Colombo, Martina Chiacchiaretta, Mattia L DiFrancesco, José F Maya-Vetencourt, Luca Maragliano, Fabio Benfenati, Fabrizia Cesca

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Astrocyte Interactions With TiAdvanced materials interfaces · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Advances in the application of logic gates in nanozymes.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mattia BraminiCenter for Synaptic Neuroscience and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
Giulio AlberiniCenter for Synaptic Neuroscience and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
Elisabetta ColomboCenter for Synaptic Neuroscience and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
Martina ChiacchiarettaCenter for Synaptic Neuroscience and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
Mattia L DiFrancescoCenter for Synaptic Neuroscience and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
José F Maya-VetencourtCenter for Synaptic Neuroscience and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
Luca MaraglianoCenter for Synaptic Neuroscience and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
Fabio BenfenatiCenter for Synaptic Neuroscience and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
Fabrizia CescaCenter for Synaptic Neuroscience and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
Italian Institute of Technology · ITUniversity of Genoa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The scientific community has witnessed an exponential increase in the applications of graphene and graphene-based materials in a wide range of fields, from engineering to electronics to biotechnologies and biomedical applications. For what concerns neuroscience, the interest raised by these materials is two-fold. On one side, nanosheets made of graphene or graphene derivatives (graphene oxide, or its reduced form) can be used as carriers for drug delivery. Here, an important aspect is to evaluate their toxicity, which strongly depends on flake composition, chemical functionalization and dimensions. On the other side, graphene can be exploited as a substrate for tissue engineering. In this case, conductivity is probably the most relevant amongst the various properties of the different graphene materials, as it may allow to instruct and interrogate neural networks, as well as to drive neural growth and differentiation, which holds a great potential in regenerative medicine. In this review, we try to give a comprehensive view of the accomplishments and new challenges of the field, as well as which in our view are the most exciting directions to take in the immediate future. These include the need to engineer multifunctional nanoparticles (NPs) able to cross the blood-brain-barrier to reach neural cells, and to achieve on-demand delivery of specific drugs. We describe the state-of-the-art in the use of graphene materials to engineer three-dimensional scaffolds to drive neuronal growth and regeneration

Indexed as

blood-brain barrierbraincomputational modelinggraphenenanomedicineneurologyscaffoldssmart materials

Identifiers

PMID29695956
PMCPMC5904258
OpenAlexW2798214266

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.