The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ZnO Particulate Matter Requires Cell Contact for Toxicity in Human Colon Cancer Cells
Abstract
There is ongoing concern regarding the toxicity of nanoparticles with sizes less than 100 nm as compared to larger particles of the same nominal substance. Two commercial ZnO types, one sold as a 8-10 nm powder and the other described as -325 mesh (<44 mum) powder, were evaluated in human colon-derived RKO cells. The powders had a volume-to-surface area ratio equivalent to 40 and 330 nm spheres, respectively. Both materials formed micrometer-sized agglomerates in cell culture media. The nanosized ZnO was more cytotoxic than the micrometer-sized ZnO with LC(50) values of 15 +/- 1 and 29 +/- 4 mug/cm(2), respectively. Transfer of Zn from the solid phase to the cell culture media in the presence of RKO cells was time- and concentration-dependent. However, direct particle-cell contact was required for RKO cell cytotoxicity, and the toxicity of particles was independent of the amount of soluble Zn in the cell culture media. The mechanism of cell death includes the disruption of mitochondrial function. Robust markers of apoptosis, Annexin V staining, loss of mitochondrial potential, and increased generation of superoxide were observed when cells were treated with ZnO particulate matter but not when treated with comparable concentration of a soluble Zn salt. Both ZnO samples induced similar mechanisms of toxicity, but there was a statistically significant increase in potency per unit mass with the smaller particles.
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
Tetrazolium dyes as tools in cell biology: new insights into their cellular reduction
Berridge, M. V., Herst, P. M., & Tan, A. S. (2005) · Biotechnology Annual Review · doi:10.1016/s1387-2656(05)11004-7 · Cited by 2,222
Nanoparticle Uptake by the Rat Gastrointestinal Mucosa: Quantitation and Particle Size Dependency
Jani, P., Halbert, G. W., Langridge, J., & Florence, A. T. (1990) · Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/j.2042-7158.1990.tb07033.x · Cited by 920
Cited by
The Toxic Effects and Mechanisms of CuO and ZnO Nanoparticles
Chang, Y.-N., Zhang, M., Xia, L., Zhang, J., & Xing, G. (2012) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma5122850 · Cited by 772
A review of mammalian toxicity of ZnO nanoparticles
Vandebriel, R., & De Jong, W. (2012) · Nanotechnology, Science and Applications · doi:10.2147/nsa.s23932 · Cited by 494
Nanoparticle toxicity by the gastrointestinal route: evidence and knowledge gaps
Bergin, I. L., & Witzmann, F. A. (2013) · International Journal of Biomedical Nanoscience and Nanotechnology · doi:10.1504/ijbnn.2013.054515 · Cited by 412
Khezerlou, A., Alizadeh-Sani, M., Azizi-Lalabadi, M., & Ehsani, A. (2018) · Microbial Pathogenesis · doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2018.08.008 · Cited by 404
Yagoub, A. E. A., Al-Shammari, G. M., Al-Harbi, L. N., Subash-Babu, P., Elsayim, R., Mohammed, M. A., Yahya, M. A., & Fattiny, S. Z. A. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app122211613 · Cited by 54
Metadata
- Authors
- Moos, P. J., Chung, K., Woessner, D., Honeggar, M., Cutler, N. S., & Veranth, J. M.
- Venue
- Chemical Research in Toxicology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2010-02-15
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 733-739
- ISSN
- 0893-228X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5010
- OpenAlex
- W2075733323
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.88
- 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
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.