Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35583639›Full record

ArticleAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2022

Trends in the Design and Evaluation of Polymeric Nanocarriers: The In Vitro Nano-Bio Interactions.

Ana Bettencourt, Lídia M Gonçalves

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ana BettencourtResearch Institute for Medicines (iMed.ULisboa), Faculty of Pharmacy, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. asimao@ff.ulisboa.pt.
Lídia M GonçalvesResearch Institute for Medicines (iMed.ULisboa), Faculty of Pharmacy, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
University of Lisbon · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Different types of natural and synthetic polymeric nanocarriers are being tested for diverse biomedical applications ranging from drug/gene delivery vehicles to imaging probes. The development of such innovative nanoparticulate systems (NPs) should include in the very beginning of their conception a comprehensive evaluation of the nano-bio interactions. Specifically, intrinsic physicochemical properties as size, surface charge and shape may have an impact on cellular uptake, intracellular trafficking, exocytosis and cyto- or genocompatibility. Those properties can be tuned for effectiveness purposes such as targeting intracellular organelles, but at the same time inducing unforeseen adverse nanotoxicological effects. Further, those properties may change due to the adsorption of biological components (e.g. proteins) with a tremendous impact on the cellular response. The evaluation of these NPs is highly challenging and has produced some controversial results. Future research work should focus on the standardization of analytical or computational methodologies, aiming the identification of toxicity trends and the generation of a useful meta-analysis database on polymeric nanocarriers.This chapter covers all the aforementioned aspects, emphasizing the importance of the in vitro cellular studies in the first stages of polymeric nanocarriers development.

Indexed as

NanoparticlesNanostructuresBiological TransportDrug CarriersDrug Delivery SystemsOrganellesPolymersProteinsDrug CarriersPolymersProteinsIn vitro testsNanotoxicologyPhysicochemical propertiesPolymeric-nanostructuresSafe-by-design

Identifiers

PMID35583639
OpenAlexW4285175167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.