Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31616663›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2019

Epigenetic Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials: Is the Collateral Damage Inevitable?

Mallikarjuna Rao Gedda, Piyoosh Kumar Babele, Kulsoom Zahra, Prasoon Madhukar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Toxicity of the Covalent Organic Framework Material TpPa to Zebrafish.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Nanodiagnostics in leishmaniasis: A new frontiers for early elimination.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  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.

Mallikarjuna Rao GeddaDepartment of Biochemistry, Institute of Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
Piyoosh Kumar BabeleDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.
Kulsoom ZahraDepartment of Biochemistry, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.
Prasoon MadhukarDepartment of Zoology, Institute of Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The extensive application of engineered nanomaterial (ENM) in various fields increases the possibilities of human exposure, thus imposing a huge risk of nanotoxicity. Hence, there is an urgent need for a detailed risk assessment of these ENMs in response to their toxicological profiling, predominantly in biomedical and biosensor settings. Numerous "toxico-omics" studies have been conducted on ENMs, however, a specific "risk assessment paradigm" dealing with the epigenetic modulations in humans owing to the exposure of these modern-day toxicants has not been defined yet. This review aims to address the critical aspects that are currently preventing the formation of a suitable risk assessment approach for/against ENM exposure and pointing out those researches, which may help to develop and implement effective guidance for nano-risk assessment. Literature relating to physicochemical characterization and toxicological behavior of ENMs were analyzed, and exposure assessment strategies were explored in order to extrapolate opportunities, challenges, and criticisms in the establishment of a baseline for the risk assessment paradigm of ENMs exposure. Various challenges, such as uncertainty in the relation of the physicochemical properties and ENM toxicity, the complexity of the dose-response relationships resulting in difficulty in its extrapolation and measurement of ENM exposure levels emerged as issues in the establishment of a traditional risk assessment. Such an appropriate risk assessment approach will provide adequate estimates of ENM exposure risks and will serve as a guideline for appropriate risk communication and management strategies aiming for the protection and the safety of humans.

Indexed as

epigenetic modificationsnanomaterials (ENMs)nano-risk assessmentnanotheranosticsnanotoxicityprotein-corona

Identifiers

PMID31616663
PMCPMC6763616

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.