↓ Skip to main content

An in vitro alveolar macrophage assay for predicting the short-term inhalation toxicity of nanomaterials

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nanobiotechnology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
An in vitro alveolar macrophage assay for predicting the short-term inhalation toxicity of nanomaterials
Published in
Journal of Nanobiotechnology, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12951-016-0164-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Wiemann, Antje Vennemann, Ursula G. Sauer, Karin Wiench, Lan Ma-Hock, Robert Landsiedel

Abstract

Most in vitro studies investigating nanomaterial pulmonary toxicity poorly correlate to in vivo inhalation studies. Alveolar macrophages (AMs) play an outstanding role during inhalation exposure since they effectively clear the alveoli from particles. This study addresses the applicability of an in vitro alveolar macrophage assay to distinguish biologically active from passive nanomaterials. Rat NR8383 alveolar macrophages were exposed to 18 inorganic nanomaterials, covering AlOOH, BaSO4, CeO2, Fe2O3, TiO2, ZrO2, and ZnO NMs, amorphous SiO2 and graphite nanoplatelets, and two nanosized organic pigments. ZrO2 and amorphous SiO2 were tested without and with surface functionalization. Non-nanosized quartz DQ12 and corundum were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. The test materials were incubated with the cells in protein-free culture medium. Lactate dehydrogenase, glucuronidase, and tumour necrosis factor alpha were assessed after 16 h. In parallel, H2O2 was assessed after 1.5 h. Using the no-observed-adverse-effect concentrations (NOAECs) from available rat short-term inhalation studies (STIS), the test materials were categorized as active (NOAEC < 10 mg/m(3)) or passive. In vitro data reflected the STIS categorization if a particle surface area-based threshold of <6000 mm(2)/mL was used to determine the biological relevance of the lowest observed significant in vitro effects. Significant effects that were recorded above this threshold were assessed as resulting from test material-unspecific cellular 'overload'. Test materials were assessed as active if ≥2 of the 4 in vitro parameters undercut this threshold. They were assessed as passive if 0 or 1 parameter was altered. An overall assay accuracy of 95 % was achieved. The in vitro NR8383 alveolar macrophage assay allows distinguishing active from passive nanomaterials. Thereby, it allows determining whether in vivo short-term inhalation testing is necessary for hazard assessment. Results may also be used to group nanomaterials by biological activity. Further work should aim at validating the assay.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Unknown 97 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 27%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 27 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 9%
Chemistry 7 7%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 34 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,372,369
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#654
of 1,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,520
of 298,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,422 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 298,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.