ArticleToxics2022
Colony-Forming Efficiency Assay to Assess Nanotoxicity of Graphene Nanomaterials.
Article in Toxics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthesis, computational studies, and biological evaluation of novel cyanoacrylamides as potential anticancer agents.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Toxic or non-toxic: a critical assessment of the contradictory results for selected graphene family materials.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Review
- Microwave-assisted synthesis of silica quantum dots: a novel approach for targeting PI3K/AKT signaling in breast cancer therapy.RSC advances · 2025Article
- N-Doped Graphene for Biomedical Applications: A Comparative Biocompatibility Assessment of Green and Chemical Exfoliation.Chemical research in toxicology · 2025Article
- Surface-tailored graphene nanosheets targeting PI3K/Akt signaling of breast cancer cells.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A Colony Formation-Based Assay to Evaluate Natural Killer Cell Antitumor Responses In Vitro.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Does Green Exfoliation of Graphene Produce More Biocompatible Structures?Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Article
- The colony forming efficiency assay for toxicity testing of nanomaterials-Modifications for higher-throughput.Frontiers in toxicology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The nano-market has grown rapidly over the past decades and a wide variety of products are now being manufactured, including those for biomedical applications. Despite the widespread use of nanomaterials in various industries, safety and health effects on humans are still controversial, and testing methods for nanotoxicity have not yet been clearly established. Nanomaterials have been reported to interfere with conventional cytotoxicity tests due to their unique properties, such as light absorption or light scattering. In this regard, the colony-forming efficacy (CFE) assay has been suggested as a suitable test method for testing some nanomaterials without these color-interferences. In this study, we selected two types of GNPs (Graphene nanoplatelets) as test nanomaterials and evaluated CFE assay to assess the cytotoxicity of GNPs. Moreover, for further investigation, including expansion into other cell types, GNPs were evaluated by the conventional cytotoxicity tests including the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium (MTS), Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8), and Neutral red uptake (NRU) assay using MDCK, A549 and HepG2 cells. The results of CFE assay suggest that this test method for three cell lines can be applied for GNPs. In addition, the CFE assay was able to evaluate cytotoxicity regardless more accurately of color interference caused by residual nanomaterials.
Indexed as
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.