Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31386927›Full record

ArticleActa biomaterialia2019

Systematic comparison of methods for determining the in vivo biodistribution of porous nanostructured injectable inorganic particles.

Sara Nizzero, Feng Li, Guodong Zhang, Alessandro Venuta, Carlotta Borsoi, Junhua Mai, Haifa Shen, Joy Wolfram, Zheng Li, Elvin Blanco and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta biomaterialia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Image-guided mathematical modeling for pharmacological evaluation of nanomaterials and monoclonal antibodies.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2020
    Review
  4. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sara NizzeroDepartment of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA; Applied Physics Graduate Program, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005, USA. Electronic address: snizzero@houstonmethodist.org.
Feng LiDepartment of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Guodong ZhangDepartment of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Alessandro VenutaDepartment of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Carlotta BorsoiDepartment of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Junhua MaiDepartment of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Haifa ShenDepartment of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA; Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Joy WolframDepartment of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Zheng LiDepartment of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Elvin BlancoDepartment of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Mauro FerrariDepartment of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: mferrari@arrowheadpharma.com.
Houston Methodist · US

Funding

Transport Oncophysics CoreU54CA210181 · NCI · METHODIST HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI WANG, RONGFU · 2016 to 2020
$9.3M
Mechanism of Intratumoral Transport of Particulate DrugsR01CA222959 · NCI · METHODIST HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CHEN, SHU-HSIA, LIU, XUEWU · 2018 to 2023
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA222959NCI NIH HHS U54 CA210181
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With a wide variety of biodistribution measurement techniques reported in the literature, it is important to perform side-by-side comparisons of results obtained with different methods on the same particle platform, to determine differences across methods, highlight advantages and disadvantages, and inform methods selection according to specific applications. Inorganic nanostructured particles (INPs) have gained a central role in the development of injectable delivery vectors thanks to their controllable design, biocompatibility, and favorable degradation kinetic. Thus, accurate determination of in vivo biodistribution of INPs is a key aspect of developing and optimizing this class of delivery vectors. In this study, a systematic comparison of spectroscopy (inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy), fluorescence (in vivo imaging system, confocal microscopy, and plate reader), and radiolabeling (gamma counter)-based techniques is performed to assess the accuracy and sensitivity of biodistribution measurements in mice. Each method is evaluated on porous silicon particles, an established and versatile injectable delivery platform. Biodistribution is evaluated in all major organs and compared in terms of absolute results (%ID/g and %ID/organ when possible) and sensitivity (σ

Indexed as

SiliconAnimalsFemaleMiceMice, Inbred BALB CNanoparticlesPorosityTissue DistributionSiliconBiodistributionFluorescence labelingICP-OESImagingInjectable particlesRadiolabeling

Identifiers

PMID31386927
PMCPMC9646250
OpenAlexW2966045641

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.