Cited by 72

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

In Vivo Processing of Ceria Nanoparticles inside Liver: Impact on Free‐Radical Scavenging Activity and Oxidative Stress

Graham, Uschi M., Tseng, Michael T., Jasinski, Jacek B., Yokel, Robert A., Unrine, Jason M., Davis, Burtron H., Dozier, Alan K., Hardas, Sarita S., Sultana, Rukhsana, Grulke, Eric A., Butterfield, D. Allan·2014·ChemPlusChem

Abstract

The cytotoxicity of ceria ultimately lies in its electronic structure, which is defined by the crystal structure, composition, and size. Despite previous studies focused on ceria uptake, distribution, biopersistance, and cellular effects, little is known about its chemical and structural stability and solubility once sequestered inside the liver. Mechanisms will be presented that elucidate the in vivo transformation in the liver. In vivo processed ceria reveals a particle‐size effect towards the formation of ultrafines, which represent a second generation of ceria. A measurable change in the valence reduction of the second‐generation ceria can be linked to an increased free‐radical scavenging potential. The in vivo processing of the ceria nanoparticles in the liver occurs in temporal relation to the brain cellular and protein clearance responses that stem from the ceria uptake. This information is critical to establish a possible link between cellular processes and the observed in vivo transformation of ceria. The temporal linkage between the reversal of the pro‐oxidant effect (brain) and ceria transformation (liver) suggests a cause–effect relationship.

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/cplu.201402080

Cites

1 of 1 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. 10.1039/C1CC15815E · DOI
  2. 10.1002/ange.201203780 · DOI
  3. 10.1002/anie.201203780 · DOI
  4. 10.1039/b922024k · DOI
  5. 10.1039/c0nr00875c · DOI
  6. 10.1007/s11837-008-0029-8 · DOI
  7. 10.1039/b615134e · DOI
  8. 10.1371/journal.pone.0054578 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.02.021 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2008.01.028 · DOI
  11. Shekunova T. O., 2012, Nanomed: Nanotech. Biol. Med., 1, 2
  12. 10.1080/17435390902974496 · DOI
  13. 10.1073/pnas.1301445110 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1038/srep02534 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.029 · DOI
  16. 10.1021/ja9051087 · DOI
  17. 10.1038/nnano.2011.191 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/srt.12104 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.taap.2012.02.008 · DOI
  20. 10.1093/toxsci/kfq137 · DOI
  21. 10.1093/toxsci/kfs067 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.nano.2012.08.002 · DOI
  23. 10.1021/jp055584b · DOI
  24. 10.1038/nnano.2012.64 · DOI
  25. 10.1103/PhysRevB.69.125415 · DOI
  26. 10.1021/cr3004949 · DOI
  27. 10.1063/1.2061873 · DOI
  28. 10.1017/S143192761100883X · DOI
  29. 10.1039/c1nr10510h · DOI
  30. J. O’Neill P. Petrov S. J. Skinner M. P. Ryan W. E. Lee 10 Conference Decommissioning Immobilisation and Management of Nuclear Waste for Disposal Manchester UK 2010.
  31. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.103-104.283 · DOI
  32. 10.1021/nn303543n · DOI
  33. 10.1021/cm0499139 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.cattod.2005.03.034 · DOI
  35. 10.1039/dt9730000487 · DOI
  36. 10.1021/cm010235p · DOI
  37. 10.1007/978-1-60761-756-3_18 · DOI
  38. 10.1002/ange.200906684 · DOI
  39. 10.1002/anie.200906684 · DOI
  40. 10.1002/ange.201002969 · DOI
  41. 10.1002/anie.201002969 · DOI
  42. 10.1063/1.2061873 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.11.036 · DOI
  44. 10.1088/0957-4484/21/28/285103 · DOI
  45. 10.1021/es062347t · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Graham, U. M., Tseng, M. T., Jasinski, J. B., Yokel, R. A., Unrine, J. M., Davis, B. H., Dozier, A. K., Hardas, S. S., Sultana, R., Grulke, E. A., & Butterfield, D. A.
Venue
ChemPlusChem
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06-06
Volume
79
Issue
8
Pages
1083-1088
ISSN
2192-6506
Cited by
72
References
1
Language
en

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