| Title |
In vitro inflammatory effects of hard metal (WC–Co) nanoparticle exposure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s121141 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea L Armstead, Bingyun Li |
| Abstract |
Identifying the toxicity of nanoparticles (NPs) is an important area of research as the number of nanomaterial-based consumer and industrial products continually rises. In addition, the potential inflammatory effects resulting from pulmonary NP exposure are emerging as an important aspect of nanotoxicity. In this study, the toxicity and inflammatory state resulting from tungsten carbide-cobalt (WC-Co) NP exposure in macrophages and a coculture (CC) of lung epithelial cells (BEAS-2B) and macrophages (THP-1) at a 3:1 ratio were examined. It was found that the toxicity of nano-WC-Co was cell dependent; significantly less toxicity was observed in THP-1 cells compared to BEAS-2B cells. It was demonstrated that nano-WC-Co caused reduced toxicity in the CC model compared to lung epithelial cell monoculture, which suggested that macrophages may play a protective role against nano-WC-Co-mediated toxicity in CCs. Nano-WC-Co exposure in macrophages resulted in increased levels of interleukin (IL)-1β and IL-12 secretion and decreased levels of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα). In addition, the polarizing effects of nano-WC-Co exposure toward the M1 (pro-inflammatory) and M2 (anti-inflammatory) macrophage phenotypes were investigated. The results of this study indicated that nano-WC-Co exposure stimulated the M1 phenotype, marked by high expression of CD40 M1 macrophage surface markers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 26% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 13% |
| Engineering | 3 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 35% |
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 22 November 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,970
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,759
of 317,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#76
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 317,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.