| Title |
Elucidation mechanism of different biological responses to multi-walled carbon nanotubes using four cell lines
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s26689 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hisao Haniu, Naoto Saito, Yoshikazu Matsuda, Yoong-Ahm Kim, Ki Chul Park, Tamotsu Tsukahara, Yuki Usui, Kaoru Aoki, Masayuki Shimizu, Nobuhide Ogihara, Kazuo Hara, Seiji Takanashi, Masanori Okamoto, Norio Ishigaki, Koichi Nakamura, Hiroyuki Kato |
| Abstract |
We examined differences in cellular responses to multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) using malignant pleural mesothelioma cells (MESO-1), bronchial epithelial cells (BEAS-2B), neuroblastoma cells (IMR-32), and monoblastic cells (THP-1), before and after differentiation. MESO-1, BEAS-2B and differentiated THP-1 cells actively endocytosed MWCNTs, resulting in cytotoxicity with lysosomal injury. However, cytotoxicity did not occur in IMR-32 or undifferentiated THP-1 cells. Both differentiated and undifferentiated THP-1 cells exhibited an inflammatory response. Carbon blacks were endocytosed by the same cell types without lysosomal damage and caused cytokine secretion, but they did not cause cytotoxicity. These results indicate that the cytotoxicity of MWCNTs requires not only cellular uptake but also lysosomal injury. Furthermore, it seems that membrane permeability or cytokine secretion without cytotoxicity results from several active mechanisms. Clarification of the cellular recognition mechanism for MWCNTs is important for developing safer MWCNTs. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 17% |
| Professor | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 11% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2011.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#3,598
of 4,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,902
of 246,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#49
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,121 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,212 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.