Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30529789›Full record

ReviewNanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine2019

Genotoxicity of amorphous silica nanoparticles: Status and prospects.

Mostafa Yazdimamaghani, Philip J Moos, Marina A Dobrovolskaia, Hamidreza Ghandehari

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Ovarian toxic effects of micro- and nanoplastics (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. SiOScientific reports · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Closing the Nutrient Loop-The New Approaches to Recovering Biomass Minerals during the Biorefinery Processes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mostafa YazdimamaghaniDepartment of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States; Utah Center for Nanomedicine, Nano Institute of Utah, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
Philip J MoosUtah Center for Nanomedicine, Nano Institute of Utah, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States; Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
Marina A DobrovolskaiaNanotechnology Characterization Laboratory, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, Frederick, Maryland, United States.
Hamidreza GhandehariDepartment of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States; Utah Center for Nanomedicine, Nano Institute of Utah, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States; Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States. Electronic address: hamid.ghandehari@utah.edu.
University of Utah · USFrederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research · US

Funding

BIOLOGICAL FATE AND BIOCOMPATIBILITY OF SILICA-BASED NANOCONSTRUCTSR01ES024681 · NIEHS · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI Hamid Ghandehari · 2014 to 2026
$4.1M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES024681
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Amorphous silica nanoparticles (SNPs) are widely used in biomedical applications and consumer products. Little is known, however, about their genotoxicity and potential to induce gene expression regulation. Despite recent efforts to study the underlying mechanisms of genotoxicity of SNPs, inconsistent results create a challenge. A variety of factors determine particle-cell interactions and underlying mechanisms. Further, high-throughput studies are required to carefully assess the impact of silica nanoparticle physicochemical properties on induction of genotoxic response in different cell lines and animal models. In this article, we review the strategies available for evaluation of genotoxicity of nanoparticles (NPs), survey current status of silica nanoparticle gene alteration and genotoxicity, discuss particle-mediated inflammation as a contributing factor to genotoxicity, identify existing gaps and suggest future directions for this research.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansInflammationNanoparticlesSilicon DioxideStructure-Activity RelationshipSilicon DioxideGene expression profileGenotoxicityInflammationSilica nanoparticlesStructure–activity relationship

Identifiers

PMID30529789
PMCPMC6455809
OpenAlexW2905527641

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.