ArticleSmall (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany)2026
Reprogramming Immunogenicity of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles through Sulfated Glycan Presentation.
Article in Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Heparin (HP) and dextran sulfate (DS) are well-known for their anti-thrombotic and immunomodulatory properties; however, a direct comparison of their immunological responses when used in drug delivery applications is lacking. This study addresses this gap by evaluating the immunological behavior of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) coated with HP or DS in human whole blood, primary immune cells, endothelial cells, and in vivo. Both HP-SPIONs and DS-SPIONs effectively suppressed complement activation, as shown by reduced C3bc, C3bBbP, and TCC levels. Notably, HP-SPIONs activated monocytes (CD11b) and endothelial cells (ICAM-1, CD62P/E), whereas DS-SPIONs suppressed endothelial activation. DS-SPIONs were preferentially internalized by myeloid cells (∼50% neutrophils, ∼42% macrophages, ∼55% dendritic cells), while HP-SPIONs showed significantly lower uptake (<25% dendritic cells, ∼5% neutrophils). DS-SPIONs induced an immunosuppressive, pro-healing phenotype in murine and human macrophages, whereas HP-SPIONs drove a pro-inflammatory, M1-like response. In healthy mice, intravenous DS-SPIONs elicited a modest increase in splenic immune cell populations compared to HP-SPIONs, indicating early immune engagement. Collectively, both SPIONs attenuate complement activation, indicating high biocompatibility. Based on the early immunological responses, DS-SPIONs display a pro-healing immune profile suitable for regenerative drug delivery, whereas HP-SPIONs induce pro-inflammatory responses that may be leveraged for anticancer immunotherapy.
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.