↓ Skip to main content

Predicting the in vivo pulmonary toxicity induced by acute exposure to poorly soluble nanomaterials by using advanced in vitro methods

Overview of attention for article published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predicting the in vivo pulmonary toxicity induced by acute exposure to poorly soluble nanomaterials by using advanced in vitro methods
Published in
Particle and Fibre Toxicology, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12989-018-0260-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Loret, Françoise Rogerieux, Bénédicte Trouiller, Anne Braun, Christophe Egles, Ghislaine Lacroix

Abstract

Animal models remain at that time a reference tool to predict potential pulmonary adverse effects of nanomaterials in humans. However, in a context of reduction of the number of animals used in experimentation, there is a need for reliable alternatives. In vitro models using lung cells represent relevant alternatives to assess potential nanomaterial acute toxicity by inhalation, particularly since advanced in vitro methods and models have been developed. Nevertheless, the ability of in vitro experiments to replace animal experimentation for predicting potential acute pulmonary toxicity in human still needs to be carefully assessed. The aim of the study was to evaluate the differences existing between the in vivo and the in vitro approaches for the prediction of nanomaterial toxicity and to find advanced methods to enhance in vitro predictivity. For this purpose, rats or pneumocytes in co-culture with macrophages were exposed to the same poorly soluble and poorly toxic TiO2 and CeO2 nanomaterials, by the respiratory route in vivo or using more or less advanced methodologies in vitro. After 24 h of exposure, biological responses were assessed focusing on pro-inflammatory effects and quantitative comparisons were performed between the in vivo and in vitro methods, using compatible dose metrics. For each dose metric used (mass/alveolar surface or mass/macrophage), we observed that the most realistic in vitro exposure method, the air-liquid interface method, was the most predictive of in vivo effects regarding biological activation levels. We also noted less differences between in vivo and in vitro results when doses were normalized by the number of macrophages rather than by the alveolar surface. Lastly, although we observed similarities in the nanomaterial ranking using in vivo and in vitro approaches, the quality of the data-set was insufficient to provide clear ranking comparisons. We showed that advanced methods could be used to enhance in vitro experiments ability to predict potential acute pulmonary toxicity in vivo. Moreover, we showed that the timing of the dose delivery could be controlled to enhance the predictivity. Further studies should be necessary to assess if air-liquid interface provide more reliable ranking of nanomaterials than submerged methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Engineering 3 6%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,130,357
of 23,085,832 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#317
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,012
of 329,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,085,832 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.