The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative study of cytotoxicity, oxidative stress and genotoxicity induced by four typical nanomaterials: the role of particle size, shape and composition
Abstract
Although the biological effects of some nanomaterials have already been assessed, information on toxicity and possible mechanisms of various particle types are insufficient. Moreover, the role of particle properties in the toxic reaction remains to be fully understood. In this paper, we aimed to explore the interrelationship between particle size, shape, chemical composition and toxicological effects of four typical nanomaterials with comparable properties: carbon black (CB), single wall carbon nanotube, silicon dioxide (SiO 2) and zinc dioxide (ZnO) nanoparticles. We investigated the cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and oxidative effects of particles on primary mouse embryo fibroblast cells. As observed in the methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium (MTT) and water‐soluble tetrazolium (WST) assays, ZnO induced much greater cytotoxicity than non‐metal nanoparticles. This was significantly in accordance with intracellular oxidative stress levels measured by glutathione depletion, malondialdehyde production, superoxide dismutase inhibition as well as reactive oxygen species generation. The results indicated that oxidative stress may be a key route in inducing the cytotoxicity of nanoparticles. Compared with ZnO nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes were moderately cytotoxic but induced more DNA damage determined by the comet assay. CB and SiO 2 seemed to be less effective. The comparative analysis demonstrated that particle composition probably played a primary role in the cytotoxic effects of different nanoparticles. However, the potential genotoxicity might be mostly attributed to particle shape. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Oops they did it again! Carbon nanotubes hoax scientists in viability assays
Wörle-Knirsch, J. M., Pulskamp, K., & Krug, H. F. (2006) · Nano Letters · doi:10.1021/nl060177c · Cited by 994
Cited by
Sharifi, S., Behzadi, S., Laurent, S., Laird Forrest, M., Stroeve, P., & Mahmoudi, M. (2012) · Chem. Soc. Rev. · doi:10.1039/c1cs15188f · Cited by 1,460
Mechanisms of genotoxicity. A review of in vitro and in vivo studies with engineered nanoparticles
Magdolenova, Z., Collins, A., Kumar, A., Dhawan, A., Stone, V., & Dusinska, M. (2014) · Nanotoxicology · doi:10.3109/17435390.2013.773464 · Cited by 616
Zinc oxide nanoparticles for water disinfection
Dimapilis, E. A. S., Hsu, C.-S., Mendoza, R. M. O., & Lu, M.-C. (2018) · Sustainable Environment Research · doi:10.1016/j.serj.2017.10.001 · Cited by 426
Mesothelioma: Do asbestos and carbon nanotubes pose the same health risk?
Jaurand, M.-C. F., Renier, A., & Daubriac, J. (2009) · Particle and Fibre Toxicology · doi:10.1186/1743-8977-6-16 · Cited by 147
Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity risk of carbon nanotubes
Toyokuni, S. (2013) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2013.05.011 · Cited by 117
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, H., Liu, C., Yang, D., Zhang, H., & Xi, Z.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Toxicology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-08-29
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 69-78
- ISSN
- 0260-437X (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1263
- OpenAlex
- W2070634315
- Cited by
- 1,087
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Comparative study of cytotoxicity, oxidative stress and genotoxicity induced by four typical nanomaterials: the role of particle size, shape and composition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jat.1385
- The paper
- Yang, H., Liu, C., Yang, D., Zhang, H., & Xi, Z. (2009). Comparative study of cytotoxicity, oxidative stress and genotoxicity induced by four typical nanomaterials: the role of particle size, shape and composition. Journal of Applied Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.1385
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.