ArticleInternational journal of nanomedicine2018
Different aggregation and shape characteristics of carbon materials affect biological responses in RAW264 cells.
Article in International journal of nanomedicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preclinical evaluation of modified carbon nanohorns and their complexation with insulin.Nanoscale advances · 2023Article
- Biocompatibility Evaluation of Carbon Nanohorns in Bone Tissues.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Future Prospects for Clinical Applications of Nanocarbons Focusing on Carbon Nanotubes.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022Article
- Carbon Nanotubes: Smart Drug/Gene Delivery Carriers.International journal of nanomedicine · 2021Review
- Cellular Responses of Human Lymphatic Endothelial Cells to Carbon Nanomaterials.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Organ accumulation and carcinogenicity of highly dispersed multi-walled carbon nanotubes administered intravenously in transgenic rasH2 mice.International journal of nanomedicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCarbon nanotubes (CNTs) have various shapes, including needle-like shapes and curled shapes, and the cytotoxicity and carcinogenicity of CNTs differ depending on their shapes and surface modifications. However, the biological responses induced by CNTs and related mechanisms according to the dispersion state of CNTs have not been extensively studied. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe prepared multiwalled CNTs (MWCNTs) showing different dispersions and evaluated these MWCNTs in RAW264 cells to determine cytotoxicity, cellular uptake, and immune responses. Furthermore, RAW264 cells were also used to compare the cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of fibrous MWCNTs and spherical carbon nanohorns (CNHs) exhibiting the same degree of dispersion.
resultsOur analysis showed that the cellular uptake, localization, and inflammatory responses of MWCNTs differed depending on the dispersion state. Moreover, there were differences in uptake between MWCNTs and CNHs, even showing the same degree of dispersion. These findings suggested that receptors related to cytotoxicity and immune responses differed depending on the aggregated state of MWCNTs and surface modification with a dispersant. Furthermore, our results suggested that the receptors recognized by the cells differed depending on the particle shape.
conclusionTherefore, to apply MWCNTs as a biomaterial, it is important to determine the carcinogenicity and toxicity of the CNTs and to examine different biological responses induced by varying shapes, dispersion states, and surface modifications of particles.
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.