Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35612707›Full record

ArticleDrug delivery and translational research2022

Evaluating nanobiomaterial-induced DNA strand breaks using the alkaline comet assay.

Melissa Anne Tutty, Gabriele Vella, Antje Vennemann, Martin Wiemann, Adriele Prina-Mello

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug delivery and translational research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Comet Assay in Nano-ecogenotoxicology.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. REFINE special issue.Drug delivery and translational research · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Melissa Anne TuttyNanomedicine and Molecular Imaging Group, Clinical Medicine, Trinity Translational Medicine Institute (TTMI), Trinity College Dublin, St James's Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland. tuttym@tcd.ie.ORCID 0000-0002-6705-2492
Gabriele VellaNanomedicine and Molecular Imaging Group, Clinical Medicine, Trinity Translational Medicine Institute (TTMI), Trinity College Dublin, St James's Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Antje VennemannIBE R&D Institute for Lung Health gGmbH, Münster, Germany.
Martin WiemannIBE R&D Institute for Lung Health gGmbH, Münster, Germany.
Adriele Prina-MelloNanomedicine and Molecular Imaging Group, Clinical Medicine, Trinity Translational Medicine Institute (TTMI), Trinity College Dublin, St James's Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland. prinamea@tcd.ie.ORCID 0000-0002-4371-2214
Trinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to their unique chemical and physical properties, nanobiomaterials (NBMs) are extensively studied for applications in medicine and drug delivery. Despite these exciting properties, their small sizes also make them susceptible to toxicity. Whilst nanomaterial immunotoxicity and cytotoxicity are studied in great depth, there is still limited data on their potential genotoxicity or ability to cause DNA damage. In the past years, new medical device regulations, which came into place in 2020, were developed, which require the assessment of long-term NBM exposure; therefore, in recent years, increased attention is being paid to genotoxicity screening of these materials. In this article, and through an interlaboratory comparison (ILC) study conducted within the Horizon 2020 REFINE project, we assess five different NBM formulations, each with different uses, namely, a bio-persistent gold nanoparticle (AuNP), an IR-780 dye-loaded liposome which is used in deep tissue imaging (LipImage™815), an unloaded PACA polymeric nanoparticle used as a drug delivery system (PACA), and two loaded PACA NBMs, i.e. the cabazitaxel drug-loaded PACA (CBZ-PACA) and the NR668 dye-loaded PACA (NR668 PACA) for their potential to cause DNA strand breaks using the alkaline comet assay and discuss the current state of genotoxicity testing for nanomaterials. We have found through our interlaboratory comparison that the alkaline comet assay can be suitably applied to the pre-clinical assessment of NBMs, as a reproducible and repeatable methodology for assessing NBM-induced DNA damage. Workflow for assessing the applicability of the alkaline comet assay to determine nanobiomaterial (NBM)-induced DNA strand breaks, through an interlaboratory comparison study (ILC).

Indexed as

GoldMetal NanoparticlesComet AssayDNADNA DamageDNAGoldAuNPComet assayDNA damageGenotoxicityHepG2LipImage™815LiposomeNanobiomaterialsPACA

Identifiers

PMID35612707
PMCPMC9360128
OpenAlexW4281492192

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.