ArticleDrug delivery and translational research2022
Pre-clinical 2D and 3D toxicity response to a panel of nanomaterials; comparative assessment of NBM-induced liver toxicity.
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. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Engineering smart polymeric lipid nanoparticles for breast cancer: AI-guided formulation design, biological barriers, and translational constraints.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Applications and prospects of biomaterials in diabetes management.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Article
- In vivo safety evaluation method for nanomaterials for cancer therapy.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Review
- Xeno-Free 3D Bioprinted Liver Model for Hepatotoxicity Assessment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- A Critical Appraisal of Functionalized 2-Dimensional Carbon-Based Nanomaterials for Drug Delivery Applications.Recent patents on nanotechnology · 2024Review
- Nanoparticles for cancer therapy: a review of influencing factors and evaluation methods for biosafety.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023Review
- REFINE special issue.Drug delivery and translational research · 2022Article
- Evaluating nanobiomaterial-induced DNA strand breaks using the alkaline comet assay.Drug delivery and translational research · 2022Article
- Gold Nanoparticles Contact with Cancer Cell: A Brief Update.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanobiomaterials, or NBMs, have been used in medicine and bioimaging for decades, with wide-reaching applications ranging from their uses as carriers of genes and drugs, to acting as sensors and probes. When developing nanomedicine products, it is vitally important to evaluate their safety, ensuring that both biocompatibility and efficacy are achieved so their applications in these areas can be safe and effective. When discussing the safety of nanomedicine in general terms, it is foolish to make generalised statements due to the vast array of different manufactured nanomaterials, formulated from a multitude of different materials, in many shapes and sizes; therefore, NBM pre-clinical screening can be a significant challenge. Outside of their distribution in the various tissues, organs and cells in the body, a key area of interest is the impact of NBMs on the liver. A considerable issue for researchers today is accurately predicting human-specific liver toxicity prior to clinical trials, with hepatotoxicity not only the most cited reasons for withdrawal of approved drugs, but also a primary cause of attrition in pre-launched drug candidates. To date, no simple solution to adequately predict these adverse effects exists prior to entering human experimentation. The limitations of the current pre-clinical toolkit are believed to be one of the main reasons for this, with questions being raised on the relevance of animal models in pre-clinical assessment, and over the ability of conventional, simplified in vitro cell-based assays to adequately assess new drug candidates or NBMs. Common 2D cell cultures are unable to adequately represent the functions of 3D tissues and their complex cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions, as well as differences found in diffusion and transport conditions. Therefore, testing NBM toxicity in conventional 2D models may not be an accurate reflection of the actual toxicity these materials impart on the body. One such method of overcoming these issues is the use of 3D cultures, such as cell spheroids, to more accurately assess NBM-tissue interaction. In this study, we introduce a 3D hepatocellular carcinoma model cultured from HepG2 cells to assess both the cytotoxicity and viability observed following treatment with a variety of NBMs, namely a nanostructured lipid carrier (in the specific technical name = LipImage
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.