ArticleACS nanoscience Au2025
A Redefined Protocol for Protein Corona Analysis on Graphene Oxide.
Article in ACS nanoscience Au, 2025. 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.
- Evaluating cellular responses of lung and liver cells to graphene oxide functionalized poly(propylene)imine and polyamidoamine dendrimers: insights for biomedical applications.Discover nano · 2026Article
- Turning Unpredictable Biomolecule Adsorption to Controlled Corona Formation: Focus on Carbon Nanomaterials.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Review
- High-Sensitivity Magnetic Levitation Reveals Intrinsic Protein Corona Heterogeneity on Identical Nanoparticles.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Aerosol-Derived Graphene Oxide Nanofilm Suppresses Adhesion-Dependent Survival and Migration in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Navigating theNanoscale advances · 2026Review
- Mass Spectrometry Proteomics of the Nanoparticle Corona Is Highly Dependent on Sample Preparation Protocol.Proteomics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is well established that the biomolecular corona affects the biological behavior of nanomaterials, including cellular uptake, toxicity, and biodistribution. However, the unique physicochemical properties of advanced materials, such as graphene oxide, challenge the effectiveness of standard protocols for biomolecular corona characterization, which may lead to incomplete biomolecule recovery and biased experimental results. Protein analysis is one of the broadest techniques in the characterization of the biomolecular corona, providing important information about the composition and behavior of proteins adsorbed onto nanomaterial surfaces. Two widely accepted protein analysis methods include SDS-PAGE and mass spectrometry, and both require the complete elution of the proteins from the nanoparticle surface during denaturation steps. In this work, limitations of widely used SDS-based elution methods with GO were identified, and an improved protocol using chaotropic agents (urea and thiourea) was developed. The stepwise extraction allowed for near-complete protein desorption. Under the modified protocol, strongly bound proteins that are more hydrophobic have been proved to be underestimated using the standard method. This further reiterates the necessity for the development of methodologies tailored to the specific materials under study which accurately characterize the protein corona. Our results highlight the need for standardization and optimization of protocols to ensure reproducibility and reliability in nanosafety studies, hence promoting the safe and sustainable use of advanced materials in biological and environmental systems.
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.