The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nanomaterial standards for efficacy and toxicity assessment
Abstract
Decreased toxicity via selective delivery of cancer therapeutics to tumors has become a hallmark achievement of nanotechnology. In order to be optimally efficacious, a systemically administered nanomedicine must reach cancer cells in sufficient quantities to elicit a response and assume its active form within the tumor microenvironment (e.g., be taken up by cancer cells and release a toxic component once within the cytosol or nuclei). Most nanomedicines achieve selective tumor accumulation via the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect or a combination of the EPR effect and active targeting to cellular receptors. Here, we review how the fundamental physicochemical properties of a nanomedicine (its size, charge, hydrophobicity, etc.) can dramatically affect its distribution to cancerous tissue, transport across vascular walls, and retention in tumors. We also discuss how nanoparticle characteristics such as stability in the blood and tumor, cleavability of covalently bound components, cancer cell uptake, and cytotoxicity contribute to efficacy once the nanoparticle has reached the tumor's interstitial space. We elaborate on how tumor vascularization and receptor expression vary depending on cancer type, stage of disease, site of implantation, and host species, and review studies which have demonstrated that these variations affect tumor response to nanomedicines. Finally, we show how knowledge of these properties (both of the nanoparticle and the cancer/tumor under study) can be used to design meaningful in vivo tests to evaluate nanoparticle efficacy.WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2010 2 99–112 This article is categorized under:Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials
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
Nanomedicine: current status and future prospects
Moghimi, S. M., Hunter, A. C., & Murray, J. C. (2005) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.04-2747rev · Cited by 2,029
Winter, P. M., Morawski, A. M., Caruthers, S. D., Fuhrhop, R. W., Zhang, H., Williams, T. A., Allen, J. S., Lacy, E. K., Robertson, J. D., Lanza, G. M., et al. (2003) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000093185.16083.95 · Cited by 696
Phase I clinical trial and pharmacokinetic evaluation of NK911, a micelle-encapsulated doxorubicin
Matsumura, Y., Hamaguchi, T., Ura, T., Muro, K., Yamada, Y., Shimada, Y., Shirao, K., Okusaka, T., Ueno, H., Ikeda, M., et al. (2004) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602204 · Cited by 623
Cited by
Imaging and drug delivery using theranostic nanoparticles
Janib, S. M., Moses, A. S., & MacKay, J. A. (2010) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2010.08.004 · Cited by 1,248
Treating metastatic cancer with nanotechnology
Schroeder, A., Heller, D. A., Winslow, M. M., Dahlman, J. E., Pratt, G. W., Langer, R., Jacks, T., & Anderson, D. G. (2012) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc3180 · Cited by 1,159
Duan, X., & Li, Y. (2013) · Small · doi:10.1002/smll.201201390 · Cited by 926
Biopolymer-Based Nanoparticles for Drug/Gene Delivery and Tissue Engineering
Nitta, S., & Numata, K. (2013) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms14011629 · Cited by 666
Shaping Cancer Nanomedicine: The Effect of Particle Shape on The In Vivo Journey of Nanoparticles
Toy, R., Peiris, P. M., Ghaghada, K. B., & Karathanasis, E. (2014) · Nanomedicine · doi:10.2217/nnm.13.191 · Cited by 570
Metadata
- Authors
- Adiseshaiah, P. P., Hall, J. B., & McNeil, S. E.
- Venue
- WIREs Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-12-14
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 99-112
- ISSN
- 1939-0041 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-5116
- OpenAlex
- W2022022332
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.70
- 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: Nanomaterial standards for efficacy and toxicity assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/wnan.66
- The paper
- Adiseshaiah, P. P., Hall, J. B., & McNeil, S. E. (2010). Nanomaterial standards for efficacy and toxicity assessment. WIREs Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1002/wnan.66
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.