Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 200

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Problems and challenges in the development and validation of human cell-based assays to determine nanoparticle-induced immunomodulatory effects

Open access
Oostingh, Gertie J., Casals, Eudald, Italiani, Paola, Colognato, Renato, Stritzinger, Rene, Ponti, Jessica, Pfaller, Tobias, Kohl, Yvonne, Ooms, Daniella, Favilli, Flavia, Leppens, Hilde, Lucchesi, Davide, Rossi, Francois, Nelissen, Inge, Thielecke, Hagen, Puntes, Victor F., Duschl, Albert, Boraschi, Diana·2011·Particle and Fibre Toxicology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the increasing use of nanomaterials, the need for methods and assays to examine their immunosafety is becoming urgent, in particular for nanomaterials that are deliberately administered to human subjects (as in the case of nanomedicines). To obtain reliable results, standardised in vitro immunotoxicological tests should be used to determine the effects of engineered nanoparticles on human immune responses. However, before assays can be standardised, it is important that suitable methods are established and validated. RESULTS: In a collaborative work between European laboratories, existing immunological and toxicological in vitro assays were tested and compared for their suitability to test effects of nanoparticles on immune responses. The prototypical nanoparticles used were metal (oxide) particles, either custom-generated by wet synthesis or commercially available as powders. Several problems and challenges were encountered during assay validation, ranging from particle agglomeration in biological media and optical interference with assay systems, to chemical immunotoxicity of solvents and contamination with endotoxin. CONCLUSION: The problems that were encountered in the immunological assay systems used in this study, such as chemical or endotoxin contamination and optical interference caused by the dense material, significantly affected the data obtained. These problems have to be solved to enable the development of reliable assays for the assessment of nano-immunosafety.

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 · 10.1186/1743-8977-8-8

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 200

Metadata

Authors
Oostingh, G. J., Casals, E., Italiani, P., Colognato, R., Stritzinger, R., Ponti, J., Pfaller, T., Kohl, Y., Ooms, D., Favilli, F., Leppens, H., Lucchesi, D., Rossi, F., Nelissen, I., Thielecke, H., Puntes, V. F., Duschl, A., & Boraschi, D.
Venue
Particle and Fibre Toxicology
Published
2011
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
8
ISSN
1743-8977 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2153139782
Cited by
200
References
5
FWCI
6.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Problems and challenges in the development and validation of human cell-based assays to determine nanoparticle-induced immunomodulatory effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1743-8977-8-8
The paper
Oostingh, G. J., Casals, E., Italiani, P., Colognato, R., Stritzinger, R., Ponti, J., Pfaller, T., Kohl, Y., Ooms, D., Favilli, F., Leppens, H., Lucchesi, D., Rossi, F., Nelissen, I., Thielecke, H., Puntes, V. F., Duschl, A., & Boraschi, D. (2011). Problems and challenges in the development and validation of human cell-based assays to determine nanoparticle-induced immunomodulatory effects. Particle and Fibre Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-8-8

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.