ArticleJournal of nanobiotechnology2025
Interplay between material properties and cellular effects drives distinct pattern of interaction of graphene oxide with cancer and non-cancer cells.
Article in Journal of nanobiotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding how graphene oxide (GO) interacts with cells is crucial for its safe and efficient biomedical applications. Despite extensive research, a systematic investigation using a panel of cell lines, thoroughly characterized label-free nanomaterials, and complementary analytical techniques is lacking. Here, we examined the uptake of thin GO sheets with distinct lateral dimensions in 13 cell lines: 8 cancer (HeLa, A549, PC3, DU-145, LNCaP, SW-480, SH-SY5Y, U87-MG) and 5 non-cancer (BEAS-2B, NIH/3T3, PNT-2, HaCaT, 293T), using confocal microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, and flow cytometry. Our results reveal a striking difference in GO uptake: non-cancer cells internalized GO efficiently, while in cancer cells, GO predominantly interacted with the plasma membrane, showing minimal to no internalization. Comparison to other nanomaterials (polystyrene beads and graphene flakes) confirmed that cancer cells internalize materials similarly to non-cancer cells, indicating GO-specific interactions. We identified that GO's thinness plays important role in this differential uptake. More importantly, GO disrupts the actin cytoskeleton of cancer cells, impairing the migration in cancer but not in non-cancer cells. We propose that thin GO sheets act as a cue upon interaction with the plasma membrane of cancer cell lines, subsequently inducing actin filaments disruption leading to impaired endocytosis, migration activity, and reduced capacity of cancer cells towards GO uptake.
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.