Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35051062›Full record

ArticleToxics2022

Assessment of the Toxicity of Biocompatible Materials Supporting Bone Regeneration: Impact of the Type of Assay and Used Controls.

Milena Chraniuk, Mirosława Panasiuk, Lilit Hovhannisyan, Sabina Żołędowska, Dawid Nidzworski, Lidia Ciołek, Anna Woźniak, Agnieszka Kubiś, Natalia Karska, Zbigniew Jaegermann and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Toxics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

13 authors.

Milena ChraniukDepartment of In Vitro Studies, Institute of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, Kampinoska 25, 80-180 Gdańsk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2921-446X
Mirosława PanasiukDepartment of In Vitro Studies, Institute of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, Kampinoska 25, 80-180 Gdańsk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-7470-7306
Lilit HovhannisyanDepartment of In Vitro Studies, Institute of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, Kampinoska 25, 80-180 Gdańsk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4706-6202
Sabina ŻołędowskaDepartment of In Vitro Studies, Institute of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, Kampinoska 25, 80-180 Gdańsk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-6218-8342
Dawid NidzworskiDepartment of In Vitro Studies, Institute of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, Kampinoska 25, 80-180 Gdańsk, Poland.
Lidia CiołekBiomaterials Research Group, Ceramic and Concrete Division in Warsaw, Łukasiewicz Research Network-Institute of Ceramics and Building Materials, Cementowa 8, 31-983 Kraków, Poland.
Anna WoźniakBiomaterials Research Group, Ceramic and Concrete Division in Warsaw, Łukasiewicz Research Network-Institute of Ceramics and Building Materials, Cementowa 8, 31-983 Kraków, Poland.
Agnieszka KubiśDepartment of Biomedical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Gdańsk, Wita Stwosza 63, 80-308 Gdańsk, Poland.
Natalia KarskaDepartment of Biomedical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Gdańsk, Wita Stwosza 63, 80-308 Gdańsk, Poland.
Zbigniew JaegermannBiomaterials Research Group, Ceramic and Concrete Division in Warsaw, Łukasiewicz Research Network-Institute of Ceramics and Building Materials, Cementowa 8, 31-983 Kraków, Poland.
Sylwia Rodziewicz-MotowidłoDepartment of Biomedical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Gdańsk, Wita Stwosza 63, 80-308 Gdańsk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4471-5951
Monika BiernatBiomaterials Research Group, Ceramic and Concrete Division in Warsaw, Łukasiewicz Research Network-Institute of Ceramics and Building Materials, Cementowa 8, 31-983 Kraków, Poland.
Beata GromadzkaDepartment of In Vitro Studies, Institute of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, Kampinoska 25, 80-180 Gdańsk, Poland.

Funding

National Centre for Research and Development TECHMATSTRATEG2/406384/7/NCBR/2019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing the toxicity of new biomaterials dedicated to bone regeneration can be difficult. Many reports focus only on a single toxicity parameter, which may be insufficient for a detailed evaluation of the new material. Moreover, published data frequently do not include control cells exposed to the environment without composite or its extract. Here we present the results of two assays used in the toxicological assessment of materials' extracts (the integrity of the cellular membrane and the mitochondrial activity/proliferation), and the influence of different types of controls used on the obtained results. Results obtained in the cellular membrane integrity assay showed a lack of toxic effects of all tested extracts, and no statistical differences between them were present. Control cells, cells incubated with chitosan extract or chitosan-bioglass extract were used as a reference in proliferation calculations to highlight the impact of controls used on the result of the experiment. The use of different baseline controls caused variability between obtained proliferation results, and influenced the outcome of statistical analysis. Our findings confirm the thesis that the type of control used in an experiment can change the final results, and it may affect the toxicological assessment of biomaterial.

Indexed as

experimental controlsGLP for toxicity in vitro studiesmulticomponent biocompositestoxicity of biomaterials

Identifiers

PMID35051062
PMCPMC8778995

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.