ArticleScientific reports2023
Proof of concept nanotechnological approach to in vitro targeting of malignant melanoma for enhanced immune checkpoint inhibition.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lysosomal checkpoints in renal autoimmunity: from antigen processing to metabolic-immune crosstalk.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Melanoma treatment in the era of nanotechnology and precision medicine.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Review
- Anti-Cancer Drugs: Trends and Insights from PubMed Records.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Advances in mechanisms and challenges in clinical translation of synergistic nanomaterial-based therapies for melanoma.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Computational identification of PDL1 inhibitors and their cytotoxic effects with silver and gold nanoparticles.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Receptor Targeting Using Copolymer-Modified Gold Nanoparticles for pCMV-Luc Gene Delivery to Liver Cancer Cells In Vitro.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immunotherapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, have limitations in their effective treatment of malignancies. The immunosuppressive environment associated with the tumor microenvironment may prevent the achievement of optimal outcomes for immune checkpoint inhibitors alone, and nanotechnology-based platforms for delivery of immunotherapeutic agents are increasingly being investigated for their potential to improve the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade therapy. In this manuscript, nanoparticles were designed with appropriate size and surface characteristics to enhance their retention of payload so that they can transmit their loaded drugs to the tumor. We aimed to enhance immune cell stimulation by a small molecule inhibitor of PD-1/PD-L1 (BMS202) using nanodiamonds (ND). Melanoma cells with different disease stages were exposed to bare NDs, BMS202-NDs or BMS202 alone for 6 h. Following this, melanoma cells were co-cultured with freshly isolated human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (hPBMCs). The effects of this treatment combination on melanoma cells were examined on several biological parameters including cell viability, cell membrane damage, lysosomal mass/pH changes and expression of γHA2X, and caspase 3. Exposing melanoma cells to BMS202-NDs led to a stronger than normal interaction between the hPBMCs and the melanoma cells, with significant anti-proliferative effects. We therefore conclude that melanoma therapy has the potential to be enhanced by non-classical T-cell Immune responses via immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered by nanodiamonds-based nanoparticles.
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.