Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 273

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative Assessment of the Comparative Nanoparticle‐Uptake Efficiency of a Range of Cell Lines

Open access
dos Santos, Tiago, Varela, Juan, Lynch, Iseult, Salvati, Anna, Dawson, Kenneth A.·2011·Small

Abstract

The mechanism(s) of nanoparticle–cell interactions are still not understood. At present there is little knowledge of the relevant length‐ and timescales for nanoparticle intracellular entry and localization within cells, or the cell‐specificity of nanoparticle uptake and localisation. Here, the effect of particle size on the in‐vitro intracellular uptake of model fluorescent carboxyl‐modified polystyrene nanoparticles is investigated in various cell lines. A range of micro‐ and nanoparticles of defined sizes (40 nm to 2 μm) are incubated with a series of cell types, including HeLa and A549 epithelial cells, 1321N1 astrocytes, HCMEC D3 endothelial cells, and murine RAW 264.7 macrophages. Techniques such as confocal microscopy and flow cytometry are used to study particle uptake and subcellular localisation, making significant efforts to ensure reproducibility in a semiquantitative approach. The results indicate that internalization of (nano)particles is highly size‐dependent for all cell lines studied, and the kinetics of uptake for the same type of nanoparticle varies in the different cell types. Interestingly, even cells not specialized for phagocytosis are able to internalize the larger nanoparticles. Intracellular uptake of all sizes of particles is observed to be highest in RAW 264.7 cells (a specialized phagocytic cell line) and the lowest in the HeLa cells. These results suggest that (nano)particle uptake might not follow commonly defined size limits for uptake processes, and highlight the variability of uptake kinetics for the same material in different cell types. These conclusions have important implications for the assessment of the safety of nanomaterials and for the potential biomedical applications of nanoparticles.

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/smll.201101076

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 273

Metadata

Authors
dos Santos, T., Varela, J., Lynch, I., Salvati, A., & Dawson, K. A.
Venue
Small
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-10-19
Volume
7
Issue
23
Pages
3341-3349
ISSN
  • 1613-6810 (ISSN-L)
  • 1613-6829
OpenAlex
W2126622563
Cited by
273
References
3
FWCI
8.52
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: Quantitative Assessment of the Comparative Nanoparticle‐Uptake Efficiency of a Range of Cell Lines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smll.201101076
The paper
dos Santos, T., Varela, J., Lynch, I., Salvati, A., & Dawson, K. A. (2011). Quantitative Assessment of the Comparative Nanoparticle‐Uptake Efficiency of a Range of Cell Lines. Small. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201101076

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.