ArticleRSC advances2018
Understanding and improving assays for cytotoxicity of nanoparticles: what really matters?
Article in RSC advances, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating cellular responses of lung and liver cells to graphene oxide functionalized poly(propylene)imine and polyamidoamine dendrimers: insights for biomedical applications.Discover nano · 2026Article
- Toxic or non-toxic: a critical assessment of the contradictory results for selected graphene family materials.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Review
- Blood vessel wall shear stress determines regions of liposome accumulation in angiogenic vasculature.Drug delivery and translational research · 2024Article
- Intranasal Lipid Nanoparticles Containing Bioactive Compounds Obtained from Marine Sources to Manage Neurodegenerative Diseases.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The State of the Art and Challenges of In Vitro Methods for Human Hazard Assessment of Nanomaterials in the Context of Safe-by-Design.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Protein Expression Knockdown in Cancer Cells Induced by a Gemini Cationic Lipid Nanovector with Histidine-Based Polar Heads.Pharmaceutics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite years of excellent individual studies, the impact of nanoparticle (NP) cytotoxicity studies remains limited by inconsistent data collection and analysis. It is often unclear how exposure conditions can be used to determine cytotoxicity quantitatively. Discrepancies due to using different measurement conditions, readouts and controls to characterize NP interactions with cells lead to further challenges. To examine which parameters are critical in NP cytotoxicity studies, we have chosen to examine two NP types (liposomes and quantum dots) at different concentrations incubated with two primary vascular endothelial cells, HUVEC and HMVEC-C for a standard time of 24 h. We paid close attention to the effects of positive controls and cell association on interpretation of cytotoxicity data. Various cellular responses (ATP content, oxidative stress, mitochondrial toxicity, and phospholipidosis) were measured in parallel. Interestingly, cell association data varied significantly with the different image analyses. However, cytotoxicity responses could all be correlated with exposure concentration. Cell type did have an effect on cytotoxicity reports. Most significantly, NP cytotoxicity results varied with the inclusion or exclusion of positive controls. In the absence of positive controls, one tends to emphasize small changes in cell responses to NPs.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.