Nanomaterial Cell Interactions: Are Current In Vitro Tests Reliable?
Abstract
New properties of engineered nanomaterials raise great expectations for industrial, scientific as well as medical applications. At the same time concerns among consumers regarding the safety aspects of this new technology emerge. Furthermore, among the multitude of published studies, a considerable number do not reveal reliable data. Thus, standardized, validated, reliable, robust, reproducible and intelligent testing strategies are urgently needed that address nanomaterial toxicity. This article discusses the reliability of currently used in vitro toxicity assays. It covers major problems, pitfalls and challenges of assay performance and validation. We recommend a series of different controls to improve the experimental quality and, thus, also the reliability and reproducibility of current in vitro systems. These recommendations consequently applied in the future will increase the safe and sustainable use of nanotechnology.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Insufficient nanoparticle characterization, unidentified interference with test systems, and poor definition of controls for monitoring assay performance led to several contradictory observations in early nanotoxicology research.
“Insufficient nanoparticle characterization, unidentified interference with test systems, and poor definition of controls for monitoring assay performance led to several contradictory observations in the early days of nanotoxicology research (Hirsch et al., 2011).”
From In Vitro research Reproducibility: Keeping up High Standards (2019) · cites this paper as Hirsch et al., 2011
Cites
Nanotoxicology: An Interdisciplinary Challenge
Krug, H. F., & Wick, P. (2011) · Angewandte Chemie International Edition · doi:10.1002/anie.201001037 · Cited by 556 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
In Vitro research Reproducibility: Keeping up High Standards
Hirsch, C., & Schildknecht, S. (2019) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.01484 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Self-citationWiemann, M., Vennemann, A., Sauer, U. G., Wiench, K., Ma-Hock, L., & Landsiedel, R. (2016) · Journal of Nanobiotechnology · doi:10.1186/s12951-016-0164-2 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hirsch, C., Roesslein, M., Krug, H. F., & Wick, P.
- Affiliations
- Empa (CH)
- Venue
- Nanomedicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 837-847
- ISSN
- 1743-5889 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-6963
- OpenAlex
- W2025068492
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nanomedicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DORA Empa (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa)) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Graphene and Nanomaterials Applications
- Keywords
- engineered nanomaterials, nanomaterial toxicity, in vitro toxicity testing, assay validation, assay reliability, reproducibility, nanomaterial-cell interactions
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cytological Techniques, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Toxicity Tests, Nanostructures, Validation Studies as Topic
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
