ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2023
Inter-Individual Variations: A Challenge for the Standardisation of Complement Activation Assays.
Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Proteomics in Obesity: Unpacking the Molecular Puzzle.Current obesity reports · 2024Pooled it
- Illumination of Targeting Nanotherapeutics with Precision Eyes: From Optical to Radio-nanotheranostics.Theranostics · 2026Review
- Nanoparticle-Binding Immunoglobulins Predict Variable Complement Responses in Healthy and Diseased Cohorts.ACS nano · 2024Article
- Differences in Physico-Chemical Properties and Immunological Response in Nanosimilar Complex Drugs: The Case of Liposomal Doxorubicin.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The role of the human immune system in pathologic responses to chemicals including nanomaterials was identified as a gap in current hazard assessments. However, the complexity of the human immune system as well as interspecies variations make the development of predictive toxicity tests challenging. In the present study, we have analysed to what extent fluctuations of the complement system of different individuals will have an impact on the standardisation of immunological tests. Methods: We treated commercially available pooled sera (PS) from healthy males, individual sera from healthy donors and from patients suffering from cancer, immunodeficiency and allergies with small molecules and liposomes. Changes of iC3b protein levels measured in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays served as biomarker for complement activation. Results: The level of complement activation in PS differed significantly from responses of individual donors (p < 0.01). Only seven out of 32 investigated sera from healthy donors responded similarly to the pooled serum. This variability was even more remarkable when investigating the effect of liposomes on the complement activation in sera from donors with pre-existing pathologies. Neither the 26 sera of donors with allergies nor sera of 16 donors with immunodeficiency responded similar to the PS of healthy donors. Allergy sufferers showed an increase in iC3b levels of 4.16-fold changes when compared to PS treated with liposomes. Discussion: Our studies demonstrate that the use of pooled serum can lead to an over- or under-estimation of immunological response in particular for individuals with pre-existing pathologies. This is of high relevance when developing medical products based on nanomaterials and asks for a review of the current practice to use PS from healthy donors for the prediction of immunological effects of drugs in patients. A better understanding of individual toxicological responses to xenobiotics should be an essential part in safety assessments.
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.