ArticleCells2024
Quantitative Phase Imaging as Sensitive Screening Method for Nanoparticle-Induced Cytotoxicity Assessment.
Article in Cells, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nanoencapsulated buriti oil: toxicological assessment in Caenorhabditis elegans , simulated digestion and enhanced biological potential.Journal of the science of food and agriculture · 2026Article
- Label-free 4D holotomography with depth-adaptive segmentation for quantitative analysis of lipid droplet dynamics in hepatic organoids.Biophotonics discovery · 2026Article
- Macrophage volume analysis and real-time monitoring by digital holography.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Article
- Characterization of a Single-Capture Bright-Field and Off-Axis Digital Holographic Microscope for Biological Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The assessment of nanoparticle cytotoxicity is challenging due to the lack of customized and standardized guidelines for nanoparticle testing. Nanoparticles, with their unique properties, can interfere with biochemical test methods, so multiple tests are required to fully assess their cellular effects. For a more reliable and comprehensive assessment, it is therefore imperative to include methods in nanoparticle testing routines that are not affected by particles and allow for the efficient integration of additional molecular techniques into the workflow. Digital holographic microscopy (DHM), an interferometric variant of quantitative phase imaging (QPI), has been demonstrated as a promising method for the label-free assessment of the cytotoxic potential of nanoparticles. Due to minimal interactions with the sample, DHM allows for further downstream analyses. In this study, we investigated the capabilities of DHM in a multimodal approach to assess cytotoxicity by directly comparing DHM-detected effects on the same cell population with two downstream biochemical assays. Therefore, the dry mass increase in RAW 264.7 macrophages and NIH-3T3 fibroblast populations measured by quantitative DHM phase contrast after incubation with poly(alkyl cyanoacrylate) nanoparticles for 24 h was compared to the cytotoxic control digitonin, and cell culture medium control. Viability was then determined using a metabolic activity assay (WST-8). Moreover, to determine cell death, supernatants were analyzed for the release of the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase (LDH assay). In a comparative analysis, in which the average half-maximal effective concentration (EC
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.