Cited by 1,112Nanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsCharacterization and Applications of Magnetic NanoparticlesNanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery

Potential toxicity of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPION)

Open access
Singh, Neenu, Jenkins, Gareth J.S., Asadi, Romisa, Doak, Shareen H.·2010·Nano Reviews

Abstract

Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPION) are being widely used for various biomedical applications, for example, magnetic resonance imaging, targeted delivery of drugs or genes, and in hyperthermia. Although, the potential benefits of SPION are considerable, there is a distinct need to identify any potential cellular damage associated with these nanoparticles. Besides focussing on cytotoxicity, the most commonly used determinant of toxicity as a result of exposure to SPION, this review also mentions the importance of studying the subtle cellular alterations in the form of DNA damage and oxidative stress. We review current studies and discuss how SPION, with or without different surface coating, may cause cellular perturbations including modulation of actin cytoskeleton, alteration in gene expression profiles, disturbance in iron homeostasis and altered cellular responses such as activation of signalling pathways and impairment of cell cycle regulation. The importance of protein-SPION interaction and various safety considerations relating to SPION exposure are also addressed.

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 · 10.3402/nano.v1i0.5358

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Metallic nanoparticles are valuable for their theragnostic capabilities but face significant barriers to translation due to potential long-term toxicity and bioaccumulation.

    “Metallic NPs are valuable for their theragnostic capabilities but face significant barriers to translation due to potential long-term toxicity and bioaccumulation, which limit clinical progress [102, 103].”

    From Targeted Nanoparticles for Drug Delivery Across the Blood–Brain Barrier in Early and Late Stages of Alzheimer's Disease: A Review (2026) · cites this paper as [102]

    The Abstract describes SPION applications in imaging and treatment, and the Conclusion identifies uncertain long-term effects, tissue clearance, and toxicity as issues to address before clinical use (pages not provided). The paper supports those concerns for SPION, but does not establish bioaccumulation or a barrier to clinical translation for metallic nanoparticles generally; it also notes that some SPION agents are already clinically approved. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In vitro, upon prolonged incubation, surface-coated SPION are typically nontoxic at iron concentrations up to 10 μg/ml, while slight cytotoxicity is seen at 100 μg/ml.

    “In vitro, upon prolonged incubation, surface-coated SPION are typically nontoxic at iron concentration up to and 10 μg/ml, while slight cytotoxicity is seen at 100 μg/ml.”
  • SPION toxicity depends on dosing, exposure time, nature of the coating material, hydrodynamic diameter of the particle and SPION-protein interactions.

    “In general, SPION toxicity depends on a variety of factors, including - besides dosing and exposure time - also the nature of the coating material, the hydrodynamic diameter of the particle and SPION-protein interactions [119–122].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 107 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [32]Gupta AK Gupta M Synthesis and surface engineering of iron oxide nanoparticles for biomedical applications Biomaterials 2005 26 3995 4021 15626447

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singh, N., Jenkins, G. J. S., Asadi, R., & Doak, S. H.
Affiliations
  • Swansea University (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Singh, Neenu
Venue
Nano Reviews
Published
2010-01-01
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
5358
ISSN
2000-5121 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2045080998
Cited by
1,112
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 87 · 2021: 109 · 2020: 91 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 92 · 2017: 83 · 2016: 83 · 2015: 92 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 60 · 2012: 33
FWCI
16.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Nano Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Characterization and Applications of Magnetic Nanoparticles
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
Keywords
superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles, nanoparticle toxicity, cytotoxicity, DNA damage, oxidative stress, actin cytoskeleton, gene expression profiling, iron homeostasis, signaling pathways, cell cycle regulation, nanoparticle-protein interactions, surface coating, MRI contrast agents, drug delivery, hyperthermia

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