The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toxicity Assessments of Multisized Gold and Silver Nanoparticles in Zebrafish Embryos
Abstract
The potential toxicity of nanoparticles is addressed by utilizing a putative attractive model in developmental biology and genetics: the zebrafish (Danio rerio). Transparent zebrafish embryos, possessing a high degree of homology to the human genome, offer an economically feasible, medium‐througput screening platform for noninvasive real‐time assessments of toxicity. Using colloidal silver (cAg) and gold nanoparticles (cAu) in a panoply of sizes (3, 10, 50, and 100 nm) and a semiquantitative scoring system, it is found that cAg produces almost 100% mortality at 120 h post‐fertilization, while cAu produces less than 3% mortality at the same time point. Furthermore, while cAu induces minimal sublethal toxic effects, cAg treatments generate a variety of embryonic morphological malformations. Both cAg and cAu are taken up by the embryos and control experiments, suggesting that cAg toxicity is caused by the nanoparticles themselves or Ag+ that is formed during in vivo nanoparticle destabilization. Although cAg toxicity is slightly size dependent at certain concentrations and time points, the most striking result is that parallel sizes of cAg and cAu induce significantly different toxic profiles, with the former being toxic and the latter being inert in all exposed sizes. Therefore, it is proposed that nanoparticle chemistry is as, if not more, important than specific nanosizes at inducing toxicity in vivo. Ultimately such assessments using the zebrafish embryo model should lead to the identification of nanomaterial characteristics that afford minimal or no toxicity and guide more rational designs of materials on the nanoscale.
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
Immunological properties of engineered nanomaterials
Dobrovolskaia, M. A., & McNeil, S. E. (2007) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/nnano.2007.223 · Cited by 1,823
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
Induction of oxidative stress and apoptosis by silver nanoparticles in the liver of adult zebrafish
Choi, J. E., Kim, S., Ahn, J. H., Youn, P., Kang, J. S., Park, K., Yi, J., & Ryu, D.-Y. (2010) · Aquatic Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2009.12.012 · Cited by 494
George, S., Xia, T., Rallo, R., Zhao, Y., Ji, Z., Lin, S., Wang, X., Zhang, H., France, B., Schoenfeld, D., et al. (2011) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/nn102734s · Cited by 326
Zebrafish: A complete animal model to enumerate the nanoparticle toxicity
Chakraborty, C., Sharma, A. R., Sharma, G., & Lee, S.-S. (2016) · Journal of Nanobiotechnology · doi:10.1186/s12951-016-0217-6 · Cited by 297
Nano-TiO2– feasibility and challenges for human health risk assessment based on open literature
Christensen, F. M., Johnston, H. J., Stone, V., Aitken, R. J., Hankin, S., Peters, S., & Aschberger, K. (2011) · Nanotoxicology · doi:10.3109/17435390.2010.504899 · Cited by 141
Metadata
- Authors
- Bar‐Ilan, O., Albrecht, R. M., Fako, V. E., & Furgeson, D. Y.
- Venue
- Small
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-08-05
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 1897-1910
- ISSN
- 1613-6810 (ISSN-L)
- 1613-6829
- OpenAlex
- W2168059777
- Cited by
- 648
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.37
- 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: Toxicity Assessments of Multisized Gold and Silver Nanoparticles in Zebrafish Embryos. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smll.200801716
- The paper
- Bar‐Ilan, O., Albrecht, R. M., Fako, V. E., & Furgeson, D. Y. (2009). Toxicity Assessments of Multisized Gold and Silver Nanoparticles in Zebrafish Embryos. Small. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.200801716
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.