Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31558741›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

An in vitro assay and artificial intelligence approach to determine rate constants of nanomaterial-cell interactions.

Edward Price, Andre J Gesquiere

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Edward PriceNanoScience Technology Center, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32826, USA.
Andre J GesquiereNanoScience Technology Center, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32826, USA. andre@ucf.edu.
University of Central Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In vitro assays and simulation technologies are powerful methodologies that can inform scientists of nanomaterial (NM) distribution and fate in humans or pre-clinical species. For small molecules, less animal data is often needed because there are a multitude of in vitro screening tools and simulation-based approaches to quantify uptake and deliver data that makes extrapolation to in vivo studies feasible. Small molecule simulations work because these materials often diffuse quickly and partition after reaching equilibrium shortly after dosing, but this cannot be applied to NMs. NMs interact with cells through energy dependent pathways, often taking hours or days to become fully internalized within the cellular environment. In vitro screening tools must capture these phenomena so that cell simulations built on mechanism-based models can deliver relationships between exposure dose and mechanistic biology, that is biology representative of fundamental processes involved in NM transport by cells (e.g. membrane adsorption and subsequent internalization). Here, we developed, validated, and applied the FORECAST method, a combination of a calibrated fluorescence assay (CF) with an artificial intelligence-based cell simulation to quantify rates descriptive of the time-dependent mechanistic biological interactions between NMs and individual cells. This work is expected to provide a means of extrapolation to pre-clinical or human biodistribution with cellular level resolution for NMs starting only from in vitro data.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceSoftwareAnimalsCell LineCell MembraneDrug DiscoveryLysosomesMiceQuantum DotsSpectrophotometryToxicity Tests

Identifiers

PMID31558741
PMCPMC6763461
OpenAlexW2975667913

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.