Modeling of nanomaterial toxicity using a model averaging approach
Source abstract
Abstract
Nanomaterials can be found in many applications, from daily products to the healthcare industry. Since human can be exposed to nanomaterials through many ways, it is necessary to study the nanomaterials, especially their potential adverse effects on humans. This research was conducted under the European's Union H2020 NanoInformaTIX project and focused on the dose-response analysis of nanomaterials' toxicity. This research, focusing on the data of in vitro studies, aimed to model the relationship between the amount of administered nanomaterial and the possible toxic response on the cells using nonlinear models for the dose-response data. The data used as an example consisted of 65 data of nanomaterials which was differentiated by the cell types, on which the Likelihood ratio test was first applied to identify significant monotone trend. Dose-response model fitting was then conducted on the 14 data subsets with significant monotone trends. Several nonlinear models such as the Three-, Four-, and Five-parameter Log-logistic model, Weibull model, and Gompertz model were fitted on the data. As an illustration, the analysis of NM-110 (zinc oxide, uncoated) and NM-102 (titanium dioxide, anatase) was presented. For the NM-102 (titanium dioxide, anatase), the best model was the Weibull model according to the value of the AIC, with the value of ED50 equals 22.710 (95% C.I, 3.584-41.836). The model average estimate of the ED50 was also calculated by taking into account all fitted models, which was equal to 20.725.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. European Commission (2022) Commission recommendation of 10 June 2022 on the definition of nanomaterial (2022/c 229/01). Official J Europ Union
2. Joudeh N, Linke D (2022) Nanoparticle classification, physicochemical properties, characterization, and applications: a comprehensive review for biologists. J Nanobiotechnol 20(1):262. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-022-01477-810.1186/s12951-022-01477-8 ↗
3. Azizah RN, Verheyen GR, Shkedy Z, Van Miert S (2024) Testing for in vitro genetic toxicity in high dimensional nanomaterial dose-response experiments. J Nanoparticle Res 26(3):41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-024-05926-310.1007/s11051-024-05926-3 ↗
4. Barkalina N, Charalambous C, Jones C, Coward K (2014) Nanotechnology in reproductive medicine: emerging applications of nanomaterials. Nanomed: Nanotechnol, Biol Med 10(5):e921–e938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nano.2014.01.00110.1016/j.nano.2014.01.001 ↗
5. Pretorius D, Serpooshan V, Zhang J (2021) Nano-medicine in the cardiovascular system. Front Pharmacol 12:640182. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.64018210.3389/fphar.2021.640182 ↗
6. Liu Y, Song S, Liu S, Zhu X (2022) Wang P (2022) Application of nanomaterial in hydrogels related to wound healing. J Nanomater 1:4656037. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/465603710.1155/2022/4656037 ↗
7. Peters RJ, Bouwmeester H, Gottardo S, Amenta V, Arena M, Brandhoff P, Marvin HJ, Mech A, Moniz FB, Pesudo LQ et al (2016) Nanomaterials for products and application in agriculture, feed and food. Trends Food Sci Technol 54:155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.06.00810.1016/j.tifs.2016.06.008 ↗
8. He X, Deng H, Hm Hwang (2019) The current application of nanotechnology in food and agriculture. J Food Drug Anal 27(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2018.12.00210.1016/j.jfda.2018.12.002 ↗
9. Huang Q, Zhu Y (2019) Printing conductive nanomaterials for flexible and stretchable electronics: a review of materials, processes, and applications. Adv Mater Technol 4(5):1800546. https://doi.org/10.1002/admt.20180054610.1002/admt.201800546 ↗
10. Wu Z, Wang Y, Liu X, Lv C, Li Y, Wei D, Liu Z (2019) Carbon-nanomaterial-based flexible batteries for wearable electronics. Adv Mater 31(9):1800716. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.20180071610.1002/adma.201800716 ↗
11. Zhu L, Chen L, Gu J, Ma H, Wu H (2022) Carbon-based nanomaterials for sustainable agriculture: their application as light converters, nanosensors, and delivery tools. Plants 11(4):511. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants1104051110.3390/plants11040511 ↗
12. Lu Q, Yu X, Yagoub AEA, Wahia H, Zhou C (2021) Application and challenge of nanocellulose in the food industry. Food Biosci 43:101285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2021.10128510.1016/j.fbio.2021.101285 ↗
13. Moradi M, Razavi R, Omer AK, Farhangfar A, McClements DJ (2022) Interactions between nanoparticle-based food additives and other food ingredients: a review of current knowledge. Trends Food Sci Technol 120:75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.01.01210.1016/j.tifs.2022.01.012 ↗
14. Babu PJ, Tingirikari JMR (2023) A review on polymeric nanomaterials intervention in food industry. Polymer Bullet 80(1):137–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-022-04104-610.1007/s00289-022-04104-6 ↗
15. Asmatulu E, Andalib MN, Subeshan B, Abedin F (2022) Impact of nanomaterials on human health: a review. Environ Chem Lett 20(4):2509–2529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01430-z10.1007/s10311-022-01430-z ↗
16. Rhazouani A, Gamrani H, Ed-Day S, Lafhal K, Boulbaroud S, Gebrati L, Fdil N, Faissal A (2023) Sub-acute toxicity of graphene oxide (GO) nanoparticles in male mice after intraperitoneal injection: behavioral study and histopathological evaluation. Food Chem Toxicol 171:113553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.11355310.1016/j.fct.2022.113553 ↗
17. Villani P, Eleuteri P, Pacchierotti F, Maranghi F, Tassinari R, Narciso L, Tait S, Lori G, Andreoli C, Huet S, Jarry G, Fessard V, Cordelli E (2022) Pyrogenic synthetic amorphous silica (nm-203): genotoxicity in rats following sub-chronic oral exposure. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicol Environ Mutagenesis 876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2022.50345810.1016/j.mrgentox.2022.503458 ↗
18. Boyadzhiev A, Solorio-Rodriguez SA, Wu D, Avramescu ML, Rasmussen P, Halappanavar S (2022) The high-throughput in vitro cometchip assay for the analysis of metal oxide nanomaterial induced DNA damage. Nanomaterials 12(11):1844. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano1211184410.3390/nano12111844 ↗
19. Al Rashaideh T, Metwali N, Perry SS, Adamcakova-Dodd A, Thorne PS (2022) Cerium oxide enhances the toxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles in human lung epithelial cell cultures. Toxics 10(9):522. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics1009052210.3390/toxics10090522 ↗
20. NanoInformaTIX (2019) Nanoinformatix. development and implementation of a sustainable modelling platform for nanoinformatics. https://www.nanoinformatix.eu/, accessed on 2024-07-18
21. Claeskens G, Hjort NL (2008) Model selection and model averaging. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics
22. Jacobs R, van der Voet H, Ter Braak CJ (2015) Integrated probabilistic risk assessment for nanoparticles: the case of nanosilica in food. J Nanoparticle Res 17:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-015-2911-y10.1007/s11051-015-2911-y ↗
23. Cheng YH, Riviere JE, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Lin Z (2018) Probabilistic risk assessment of gold nanoparticles after intravenous administration by integrating in vitro and in vivo toxicity with physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling. Nanotoxicology 12(5):453–46910.1080/17435390.2018.1459922 ↗
24. Truong L, Zaikova T, Baldock BL, Balik-Meisner M, To K, Reif DM, Kennedy ZC, Hutchison JE, Tanguay RL (2019) Systematic determination of the relationship between nanoparticle core diameter and toxicity for a series of structurally analogous gold nanoparticles in zebrafish. Nanotoxicology 13(7):879–893. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2019.159225910.1080/17435390.2019.1592259 ↗
25. Llewellyn SV, Conway GE, Zanoni I, Jørgensen AK, Shah UK, Seleci DA, Keller JG, Kim JW, Wohlleben W, Jensen KA et al (2021) Understanding the impact of more realistic low-dose, prolonged engineered nanomaterial exposure on genotoxicity using 3D models of the human liver. J Nanobiotechnol 19:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-021-00938-w10.1186/s12951-021-00938-w ↗
26. Galal GF, Abd-Elhalim BT, Abou-Taleb KA, Haroun AA, Gamal RF (2021) Toxicity assessment of green synthesized cu nanoparticles by cell-free extract of pseudomonas silesiensis as antitumor cancer and antimicrobial. Ann Agric Sci 66(1):8–1510.1016/j.aoas.2021.01.006 ↗
27. Shkedy Z, Amaratunga D, Lin D (2012) Testing of equality of means against ordered alternatives. In: Lin D, Shkedy Z, Yekutieli D, Amaratunga D, Bijnens L (eds) Modeling Dose-Response Microarray Data in Early Drug Development Experiments Using R: Order-Restricted Analysis of Microarray Data. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24007-2_310.1007/978-3-642-24007-2_3 ↗
28. Williams DA (1971) A test for differences between treatment means when several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control. Biometrics 27(1):103–11710.2307/2528930 ↗
29. Marcus R (1976) The powers of some tests of equality of normal means against an ordered alternative. Biometrika 63(1):177–183
30. Barlow RE, Bartholomew DJ, Bremner MJ, Brunk HD (1972) Statistical inference under order restrictions. J. Wiley, New York
31. Straetemans R (2012) Nonlinear Modeling of Dose-Response Data, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24007-2_410.1007/978-3-642-24007-2_4 ↗
32. Ritz C, Baty F, Streibig JC, Gerhard D (2015) Dose-response analysis using r. PLOS ONE 10(12):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.014602110.1371/journal.pone.0146021 ↗
33. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Academiai Kiado, Budapest, pp 267–281
34. Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6(2):461–46410.1214/aos/1176344136 ↗
35. Buckland ST, Burnham KP, Augustin NH (1997) Model selection: an integral part of inference. Biometrics pp 603–61810.2307/2533961 ↗
36. Kang SH, Kodell RL, Chen JJ (2000) Incorporating model uncertainties along with data uncertainties in microbial risk assessment. Regulatory Toxicol Pharmacol 32(1):68–72. https://doi.org/10.1006/rtph.2000.140410.1006/rtph.2000.1404 ↗
37. Ritz C, Strebig JC (2016) Package ‘drc’. Mountain View, CA, USA, Creative Commons