↓ Skip to main content

The carcinogenic effect of various multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) after intraperitoneal injection in rats

Overview of attention for article published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 578)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The carcinogenic effect of various multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) after intraperitoneal injection in rats
Published in
Particle and Fibre Toxicology, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12989-014-0059-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Rittinghausen, Anja Hackbarth, Otto Creutzenberg, Heinrich Ernst, Uwe Heinrich, Albrecht Leonhardt, Dirk Schaudien

Abstract

BackgroundBiological effects of tailor-made multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) without functionalization were investigated in vivo in a two-year carcinogenicity study. In the past, intraperitoneal carcinogenicity studies in rats using biopersistent granular dusts had always been negative, whereas a number of such studies with different asbestos fibers had shown tumor induction. The aim of this study was to identify possible carcinogenic effects of MWCNTs. We compared induced tumors with asbestos-induced mesotheliomas and evaluated their relevance for humans by immunohistochemical methods.MethodsA total of 500 male Wistar rats (50 per group) were treated once by intraperitoneal injection with 109 or 5¿×¿109 WHO carbon nanotubes of one of four different MWCNTs suspended in artificial lung medium, which was also used as negative control. Amosite asbestos (108 WHO fibers) served as positive control. Morbid rats were sacrificed and necropsy comprising all organs was performed. Histopathological classification of tumors and, additionally, immunohistochemistry were conducted for podoplanin, pan-cytokeratin, and vimentin to compare induced tumors with malignant mesotheliomas occurring in humans.ResultsTreatments induced tumors in all dose groups, but incidences and times to tumor differed between groups. Most tumors were histologically and immunohistochemically classified as malignant mesotheliomas, revealing a predominantly superficial spread on the serosal surface of the abdominal cavity. Furthermore, most tumors showed invasion of peritoneal organs, especially the diaphragm. All tested MWCNT types caused mesotheliomas. We observed highest frequencies and earliest appearances after treatment with the rather straight MWCNT types A and B. In the MWCNT C groups, first appearances of morbid mesothelioma-bearing rats were only slightly later. Later during the two-year study, we found mesotheliomas also in rats treated with MWCNT D ¿ the most curved type of nanotubes. Malignant mesotheliomas induced by intraperitoneal injection of different MWCNTs and of asbestos were histopathologically and immunohistochemically similar, also compared with mesotheliomas in man, suggesting similar pathogenesis.ConclusionWe showed a carcinogenic effect for all tested MWCNTs. Besides aspect ratio, curvature seems to be an important parameter influencing the carcinogenicity of MWCNTs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 77 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 26%
Researcher 17 21%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Chemistry 7 9%
Engineering 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 20 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 10 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,091,754
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#34
of 578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,170
of 365,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#2
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 365,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.