Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32849921›Full record

ArticleCancer nanotechnology2020

Elucidating the fate of nanoparticles among key cell components of the tumor microenvironment for promoting cancer nanotechnology.

Kyle Bromma, Aaron Bannister, Antonia Kowalewski, Leah Cicon, Devika B Chithrani

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer nanotechnology, 2020. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Gold Nanoparticles Contact with Cancer Cell: A Brief Update.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  13. One-Pot Synthesis of Customized Metal-Phenolic-Network-Coated AIE Dots for In Vivo Bioimaging.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors.

Kyle BrommaDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC Canada.
Aaron BannisterDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC Canada.
Antonia KowalewskiDepartment of Physics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada.
Leah CiconDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC Canada.
Devika B ChithraniDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5251-1388

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successful integration of nanotechnology into the current paradigm of cancer therapy requires proper understanding of the interface between nanoparticles (NPs) and cancer cells, as well as other key components within the tumor microenvironment (TME), such as normal fibroblasts (FBs) and cancer-associated FBs (CAFs). So far, much focus has been on cancer cells, but FBs and CAFs also play a critical role: FBs suppress the tumor growth while CAFs promote it. It is not yet known how NPs interact with FBs and CAFs compared to cancer cells. Hence, our goal was to elucidate the extent of NP uptake, retention, and toxicity in cancer cells, FBs, and CAFs to further understand the fate of NPs in a real tumor-like environment. The outcome of this would guide designing of NP-based delivery systems to fully exploit the TME for a better therapeutic outcome. We used gold nanoparticles as our model NP system due to their numerous applications in cancer therapy, including radiotherapy and chemotherapy. A cervical cancer cell line, HeLa, and a triple-negative breast cancer cell line, MDA-MB-231 were chosen as cancer cell lines. For this study, a clinically feasible 0.2 nM concentration of GNPs was employed. According to our results, the cancer cells and CAFs had over 25- and 10-fold higher NP uptake per unit cell volume compared to FBs, respectively. Further, the cancer cells and CAFs had over 30% higher NP retention compared to FBs. There was no observed significant toxicity due to GNPs in all the cell lines studied. Higher uptake and retention of NPs in cancer cells and CAFs

Indexed as

Cancer-associated fibroblast cellsCancer cellsGold nanoparticlesMicrotubulesNormal fibroblast cellsRetentionToxicityUptake

Identifiers

PMID32849921
PMCPMC7437649

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.