Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 194

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validating Metal‐Organic Framework Nanoparticles for Their Nanosafety in Diverse Biomedical Applications

Open access
Wuttke, Stefan, Zimpel, Andreas, Bein, Thomas, Braig, Simone, Stoiber, Katharina, Vollmar, Angelika, Müller, Dominik, Haastert‐Talini, Kirsten, Schaeske, Jörn, Stiesch, Meike, Zahn, Gesa, Mohmeyer, Alexander, Behrens, Peter, Eickelberg, Oliver, Bölükbas, Deniz A., Meiners, Silke·2017·Advanced Healthcare Materials

Abstract

Metal‐organic frameworks (MOFs) are promising platforms for the synthesis of nanoparticles for diverse medical applications. Their fundamental design principles allow for significant control of the framework architecture and pore chemistry, enabling directed functionalization for nanomedical applications. However, before applying novel nanomaterials to patients, it is imperative to understand their potential health risks. In this study, the nanosafety of different MOF nanoparticles is analyzed comprehensively for diverse medical applications. The authors first evaluate the effects of MOFs on human endothelial and mouse lung cells, which constitute a first line of defense upon systemic blood‐mediated and local lung‐specific applications of nanoparticles. Second, we validated these MOFs for multifunctional surface coatings of dental implants using human gingiva fibroblasts. Moreover, biocompatibility of MOFs is assessed for surface coating of nerve guidance tubes using human Schwann cells and rat dorsal root ganglion cultures. The main finding of this study is that the nanosafety and principal suitability of our MOF nanoparticles as novel agents for drug delivery and implant coatings strongly varies with the effector cell type. We conclude that it is therefore necessary to carefully evaluate the nanosafety of MOF nanomaterials with respect to their particular medical application and their interacting primary cell types, respectively.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/adhm.201600818

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 194

Metadata

Authors
Wuttke, S., Zimpel, A., Bein, T., Braig, S., Stoiber, K., Vollmar, A., Müller, D., Haastert‐Talini, K., Schaeske, J., Stiesch, M., Zahn, G., Mohmeyer, A., Behrens, P., Eickelberg, O., Bölükbas, D. A., & Meiners, S.
Venue
Advanced Healthcare Materials
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-11-15
Volume
6
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 2192-2640 (ISSN-L)
  • 2192-2659
OpenAlex
W2553696468
Cited by
194
References
4
FWCI
7.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validating Metal‐Organic Framework Nanoparticles for Their Nanosafety in Diverse Biomedical Applications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/adhm.201600818
The paper
Wuttke, S., Zimpel, A., Bein, T., Braig, S., Stoiber, K., Vollmar, A., Müller, D., Haastert‐Talini, K., Schaeske, J., Stiesch, M., Zahn, G., Mohmeyer, A., Behrens, P., Eickelberg, O., Bölükbas, D. A., & Meiners, S. (2017). Validating Metal‐Organic Framework Nanoparticles for Their Nanosafety in Diverse Biomedical Applications. Advanced Healthcare Materials. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201600818

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.