Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 238

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

Adiseshaiah, Pavan P., Hall, Jennifer B., McNeil, Scott E.·2010·WIREs Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wnan.66

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 238

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.