4.2 Review

Efficacy of green nanoparticles against cancerous and normal cell lines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

IET NANOBIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages 377-391

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1049/iet-nbt.2017.0120

Keywords

reviews; nanoparticles; cancer; nanomedicine; magnetic particles; nanomagnetics; nanofabrication; cellular biophysics; Bayes methods; microorganisms; toxicology; antibacterial activity; green nanoparticles; cancerous cell lines; normal cell lines; review; meta-analysis; microbial synthesised metallic nanoparticles; Bayesian generalised linear model; HeLa cancer cell lines; A549 cancer cell lines; gram-negative bacteria; gram-positive bacteria; cytotoxicity; anticancer agents; cancer disease treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of papers discussing the efficacy of microbial synthesised metallic nanoparticles (MNPs) against cancerous and normal cell lines by exploiting Bayesian generalised linear (BGL) model. Data was systematically collected from published papers via Cochrane library, Web of Science, PubMed, Science Direct, ProQuest, Scopus, and Embase. Impressively, most of the studies were carried out on HeLa and A549 cancer cell lines. Specifically, a hefty 65.67% of studies employed bacteria to biofabricate MNPs. Significantly, BGL meta-analysis represented highly valuable information. Hence, based on adjusted analysis, the MNPs with the size of 25-50 nm were found to be far less cytotoxic than the MNPs with the size of <= 25 nm (OR=0.233, P<0.05) against either cancerous or normal cell lines. Interestingly, it was found that the odds of cytotoxicity in cancerous cell lines were practically nine times more than normal cell lines, representing the substantially more cytotoxicity of MNPs in cancerous cell lines (OR=9.004, P<0.001). Green MNPs mentioned here may be developed as novel anti-cancer agents, which could lead to a revolution in the treatment of cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available