Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35540163›Full record

ArticleRSC advances2018

Understanding and improving assays for cytotoxicity of nanoparticles: what really matters?

Hagar I Labouta, Christopher Sarsons, Jacob Kennard, M Juliana Gomez-Garcia, Kenrick Villar, Hyungbok Lee, David T Cramb, Kristina D Rinker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

8 authors.

Hagar I LaboutaDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, University of Calgary Calgary Canada dcramb@ucalgary.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7344-5893
Christopher SarsonsBiomedical Engineering, University of Calgary Calgary Canada kdrinker@ucalgary.ca.
Jacob KennardBiomedical Engineering, University of Calgary Calgary Canada kdrinker@ucalgary.ca.
M Juliana Gomez-GarciaBiomedical Engineering, University of Calgary Calgary Canada kdrinker@ucalgary.ca.
Kenrick VillarBiomedical Engineering, University of Calgary Calgary Canada kdrinker@ucalgary.ca.
Hyungbok LeeBiomedical Engineering, University of Calgary Calgary Canada kdrinker@ucalgary.ca.
David T CrambDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, University of Calgary Calgary Canada dcramb@ucalgary.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2494-0091
Kristina D RinkerBiomedical Engineering, University of Calgary Calgary Canada kdrinker@ucalgary.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8827-8693

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID35540163
PMCPMC9081595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.