Cited by 84Animal testing and alternativesNanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsImmunotoxicology and immune responses

Alternative in vitro assays in nanomaterial toxicology

Hartung, Thomas, Sabbioni, Enrico·2011·WIREs Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology

Abstract

Nanomaterials are acclaimed for their novel properties, for which broad new uses are being discovered with increasing frequency. It is obvious that, as the properties change, unwanted properties (toxicity) are to be expected as well. Current toxicology, however, is already overwhelmed with the challenge of addressing new chemicals, not to mention the enormous number of old chemicals never properly assessed. Limitations of traditional approaches range from animal welfare issues, which were a strong driving force for alternative approaches (the 3Rs concept) over the last two decades, to aspects of throughput and accuracy of the predicted toxicities. The latter has prompted discussion about a revolutionary change in chemical safety assessment, now known as Toxicology for the 21st Century (Tox‐21c). The multitude of possible formulations of nanomaterials to be assessed for novel toxic properties makes these alternative approaches especially attractive, given the well recognized limitations of traditional animal‐based approaches—limitations that might be even more pronounced for nanomaterials, which have notably altered biokinetics. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2011 3 545–573 DOI: 10.1002/wnan.153 This article is categorized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wnan.153

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Researchers early on realized that the immense number of newly developed nanomaterials would make classical in vivo animal tests impossible due to time, money, and number of animals required.

    “This is mainly due to the fact that researchers early on realized that the immense number of newly developed nanomaterials would make it impossible to perform classical in vivo animal tests due to the amount of time, money, and number of animals required (Hartung and Sabbioni, 2011; Schrurs and Lison, 2012; Guggenheim et al., 2018).”

    From In Vitro research Reproducibility: Keeping up High Standards (2019) · cites this paper as Hartung and Sabbioni, 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hartung, T., & Sabbioni, E.
Affiliations
University of Chieti-Pescara (IT)
Venue
WIREs Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-07-15
Volume
3
Issue
6
Pages
545-573
ISSN
  • 1939-0041 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5116
OpenAlex
W2065342600
Cited by
84
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
Keywords
nanomaterial toxicity, 3Rs, animal welfare, chemical safety assessment, toxicity prediction
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Welfare, Humans, Research Design, Toxicity Tests, Biomedical Research, Nanostructures, Mice, Rats, In Vitro Techniques

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