Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35799027›Full record

ArticleDrug delivery and translational research2022

Interlaboratory evaluation of a digital holographic microscopy-based assay for label-free in vitro cytotoxicity testing of polymeric nanocarriers.

Anne Marzi, Kai Moritz Eder, Álvaro Barroso, Ane Marit Wågbø, Ýrr Mørch, Anne Rein Hatletveit, Torkild Visnes, Ruth B Schmid, Geir Klinkenberg, Björn Kemper and 1 more

Open 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. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. REFINE special issue.Drug delivery and translational research · 2022
    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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anne Marzi *Biomedical Technology Center (BMTZ) of the Medical Faculty, University of Muenster, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Kai Moritz Eder *Biomedical Technology Center (BMTZ) of the Medical Faculty, University of Muenster, 48149, Muenster, Germany. kai.eder@uni-muenster.de.ORCID 0000-0003-1646-8129
Álvaro BarrosoBiomedical Technology Center (BMTZ) of the Medical Faculty, University of Muenster, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Ane Marit WågbøDepartment of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, SINTEF Industry (SINTEF), 7034, Trondheim, Norway.
Ýrr MørchDepartment of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, SINTEF Industry (SINTEF), 7034, Trondheim, Norway.
Anne Rein HatletveitDepartment of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, SINTEF Industry (SINTEF), 7034, Trondheim, Norway.
Torkild VisnesDepartment of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, SINTEF Industry (SINTEF), 7034, Trondheim, Norway.
Ruth B SchmidDepartment of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, SINTEF Industry (SINTEF), 7034, Trondheim, Norway.
Geir KlinkenbergDepartment of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, SINTEF Industry (SINTEF), 7034, Trondheim, Norway.
Björn Kemper *Biomedical Technology Center (BMTZ) of the Medical Faculty, University of Muenster, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Jürgen Schnekenburger *Biomedical Technology Center (BMTZ) of the Medical Faculty, University of Muenster, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
SINTEF · NOAugenstern · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

State-of-the-art in vitro test systems for nanomaterial toxicity assessment are based on dyes and several staining steps which can be affected by nanomaterial interference. Digital holographic microscopy (DHM), an interferometry-based variant of quantitative phase imaging (QPI), facilitates reliable proliferation quantification of native cell populations and the extraction of morphological features in a fast and label- and interference-free manner by biophysical parameters. DHM therefore has been identified as versatile tool for cytotoxicity testing in biomedical nanotechnology. In a comparative study performed at two collaborating laboratories, we investigated the interlaboratory variability and performance of DHM in nanomaterial toxicity testing, utilizing complementary standard operating procedures (SOPs). Two identical custom-built off-axis DHM systems, developed for usage in biomedical laboratories, equipped with stage-top incubation chambers were applied at different locations in Europe. Temporal dry mass development, 12-h dry mass increments and morphology changes of A549 human lung epithelial cell populations upon incubation with two variants of poly(alkyl cyanoacrylate) (PACA) nanoparticles were observed in comparison to digitonin and cell culture medium controls. Digitonin as cytotoxicity control, as well as empty and cabazitaxel-loaded PACA nanocarriers, similarly impacted 12-h dry mass development and increments as well as morphology of A549 cells at both participating laboratories. The obtained DHM data reflected the cytotoxic potential of the tested nanomaterials and are in agreement with corresponding literature on biophysical and chemical assays. Our results confirm DHM as label-free cytotoxicity assay for polymeric nanocarriers as well as the repeatability and reproducibility of the technology. In summary, the evaluated DHM assay could be efficiently implemented at different locations and facilitates interlaboratory in vitro toxicity testing of nanoparticles with prospects for application in regulatory science.

Indexed as

HolographyMicroscopyDigitoninHumansIn Vitro TechniquesReproducibility of ResultsDigitoninDigital holographic microscopyInterlaboratory comparisonIn vitroLabel-free cytotoxicity testingNanoparticlesQuantitative phase imagingRegulatory scienceTechnology transfer

Identifiers

PMID35799027
PMCPMC9263039
OpenAlexW4284896950

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.