Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38187113›Full record

ReviewToxicology reports2023

Chitosan nanoparticle toxicity: A comprehensive literature review of

Liaw Hui Zoe, Sheba R David, Rajan Rajabalaya

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxicology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Nanoformulations in epilepsy therapy - a systematic review of emerging strategies in status epilepticus.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Enhanced cytotoxic activity ofNanoscale advances · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Impacts ofToxicology research · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Liaw Hui ZoePAPRSB Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, BE1410 Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam.
Sheba R DavidSchool of Pharmacy, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA.
Rajan RajabalayaPAPRSB Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, BE1410 Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam.
Universiti Brunei Darussalam · BNUniversity of Wyoming · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Topic definition: This literature review aims to update the current knowledge on toxicity of chitosan nanoparticles, compare the recent findings and identify the gaps with knowledge that is present for the chitosan nanoparticles. Methods: The publications between 2010 and 2020 were searched in Science Direct, Pubmed.gov, Google Scholar, Research Gate, and ClinicalTrials.gov, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 30 primary research studies were obtained from the literature review to compare the Major highlights: Chitosan nanoparticles and other types of nanoparticles show cytotoxic effects on cancer cells while having minimal toxicity on normal cells. This apparent effect poses some considerations for use in incorporating cancer therapeutics into chitosan nanoparticles as an administration form. The concentration, duration of exposure, and pH of the solution can influence nanoparticle cytotoxicity, particularly in zebrafish. Different cell lines exhibit varying degrees of toxicity when exposed to nanoparticles, and of note are liver cells that show toxicity under exposure as indicated by increased alanine transaminase (ALT) levels. Aside from ALT, platelet aggregation can be considered a toxicity induced by chitosan nanoparticles. In addition, zebrafish cells experience the most toxicity, including organ damage, neurobehavioral impairment, and developmental abnormalities, when exposed to nanoparticles. However, nanoparticles may exhibit different toxicity profiles in different organisms, with brain toxicity and liver toxicity being present in zebrafish but not rats. Different organs exhibit varying degrees of toxicity, with the eye and mouth apparently having the lowest toxicity, while the brain, intestine, muscles and lung showing mixed results. Cardiotoxicity induced by chitosan nanoparticles was not observed in zebrafish embryos, and nanoparticles may reduce cardiotoxicity when delivering drug. Toxicity found in an organ may not necessarily mean that it is toxic towards all the cells found in that organ, as muscle toxicity was present when tested in zebrafish but not in C2C12 myoblast cells. Some of the studies conducted may have limitations that need to be reconsidered to account for differing results, with some examples being two experiments done on HeLa cells where one study concluded chitosan nanoparticles were toxic to the cells while the other seems to have no toxicity present. With regards to LD Scope for future work: This literature review did not uncover any published clinical trials with available results. Subsequent research endeavors should prioritize conducting clinical trials involving human volunteers to directly assess toxicity, rather than relying on cell or animal models.

Indexed as

Cell linesChitosanDeacetylationNanoparticles

Identifiers

PMID38187113
PMCPMC10767636
OpenAlexW4382358172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.