Single-Walled vs. Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes: Influence of Physico-Chemical Properties on Toxicogenomics Responses in Mouse Lungs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) are nanomaterials with one or multiple layers of carbon sheets. While it is suggested that various properties influence their toxicity, the specific mechanisms are not completely known. This study was aimed to determine if single or multi-walled structures and surface functionalization influence pulmonary toxicity and to identify the underlying mechanisms of toxicity. Female C57BL/6J BomTac mice were exposed to a single dose of 6, 18, or 54 μg/mouse of twelve SWCNTs or MWCNTs of different properties. Neutrophil influx and DNA damage were assessed on days 1 and 28 post-exposure. Genome microarrays and various bioinformatics and statistical methods were used to identify the biological processes, pathways and functions altered post-exposure to CNTs. All CNTs were ranked for their potency to induce transcriptional perturbation using benchmark dose modelling. All CNTs induced tissue inflammation. MWCNTs were more genotoxic than SWCNTs. Transcriptomics analysis showed similar responses across CNTs at the pathway level at the high dose, which included the perturbation of inflammatory, cellular stress, metabolism, and DNA damage responses. Of all CNTs, one pristine SWCNT was found to be the most potent and potentially fibrogenic, so it should be prioritized for further toxicity testing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".