Literature DB >> 19041420

Genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials: methods, preparation and characterization of test material, potential artifacts and limitations--many questions, some answers.

Robert Landsiedel1, Maike Diana Kapp2, Markus Schulz1, Karin Wiench1, Franz Oesch3.   

Abstract

Nanomaterials display novel properties to which most toxicologists have not consciously been exposed before the advent of their practical use. The same properties, small size and particular shape, large surface area and surface activity, which make nanomaterials attractive in many applications, may contribute to their toxicological profile. This review describes what is known about genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials published in the openly available scientific literature to-date. The most frequently used test was the Comet assay: 19 studies, 14 with positive outcome. The second most frequently used test was the micronucleus test: 14 studies, 12 of them with positive outcome. The Ames test, popular with other materials, was less frequently used (6 studies) and was almost always negative, the bacterial cell wall possibly being a barrier for many nanomaterials. Recommendations for improvements emerging from analyzing the reports summarized in this review are: Know what nanomaterial has been tested (and in what form); Consider uptake and distribution of the nanomaterial; Use standardized methods; Recognize that nanomaterials are not all the same; Use in vivo studies to correlate in vitro results; Take nanomaterials specific properties into account; Learn about the mechanism of nanomaterials genotoxic effects. It is concluded that experiences with other, non-nano, substances (molecules and larger particles) taught us that mechanisms of genotoxic effects can be diverse and their elucidation can be demanding, while there often is an immediate need to assess the genotoxic hazard. Thus a practical, pragmatic approach is the use of a battery of standard genotoxicity testing methods covering a wide range of mechanisms. Application of these standard methods to nanomaterials demands adaptations and the interpretation of results from the genotoxicity tests may need additional considerations. This review should help to improve standard genotoxicity testing as well as investigations on the underlying mechanism and the interpretation of genotoxicity data on nanomaterials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19041420     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.10.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res        ISSN: 0027-5107            Impact factor:   2.433


  46 in total

1.  Toxicity and genotoxicity of organic and inorganic nanoparticles to the bacteria Vibrio fischeri and Salmonella typhimurium.

Authors:  I Lopes; R Ribeiro; F E Antunes; T A P Rocha-Santos; M G Rasteiro; A M V M Soares; F Gonçalves; R Pereira
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 2.823

2.  Nanotoxicology: damaging DNA from a distance.

Authors:  Päivi Myllynen
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 39.213

Review 3.  The impact of nanomaterial characteristics on inhalation toxicity.

Authors:  Frank S Bierkandt; Lars Leibrock; Sandra Wagener; Peter Laux; Andreas Luch
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.524

Review 4.  Practical considerations for conducting ecotoxicity test methods with manufactured nanomaterials: what have we learnt so far?

Authors:  Richard D Handy; Nico van den Brink; Mark Chappell; Martin Mühling; Renata Behra; Maria Dušinská; Peter Simpson; Jukka Ahtiainen; Awadhesh N Jha; Jennifer Seiter; Anthony Bednar; Alan Kennedy; Teresa F Fernandes; Michael Riediker
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 2.823

5.  Evidence of the differential biotransformation and genotoxicity of ZnO and CeO2 nanoparticles on soybean (Glycine max) plants.

Authors:  Martha L López-Moreno; Guadalupe de la Rosa; José A Hernández-Viezcas; Hiram Castillo-Michel; Cristian E Botez; José R Peralta-Videa; Jorge L Gardea-Torresdey
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 9.028

6.  Genotoxicity of citrate-coated silver nanoparticles to human keratinocytes assessed by the comet assay and cytokinesis blocked micronucleus assay.

Authors:  V Bastos; I F Duarte; C Santos; H Oliveira
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 4.223

7.  Pulmonary exposure to carbon black by inhalation or instillation in pregnant mice: effects on liver DNA strand breaks in dams and offspring.

Authors:  Petra Jackson; Karin Sørig Hougaard; Anne Mette Z Boisen; Nicklas Raun Jacobsen; Keld Alstrup Jensen; Peter Møller; Gunnar Brunborg; Kristine Bjerve Gutzkow; Ole Andersen; Steffen Loft; Ulla Vogel; Håkan Wallin
Journal:  Nanotoxicology       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 5.913

8.  Silver nanoparticles: correlating nanoparticle size and cellular uptake with genotoxicity.

Authors:  Kimberly S Butler; David J Peeler; Brendan J Casey; Benita J Dair; Rosalie K Elespuru
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2015-05-11       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 9.  Nanotechnology: toxicologic pathology.

Authors:  Ann F Hubbs; Linda M Sargent; Dale W Porter; Tina M Sager; Bean T Chen; David G Frazer; Vincent Castranova; Krishnan Sriram; Timothy R Nurkiewicz; Steven H Reynolds; Lori A Battelli; Diane Schwegler-Berry; Walter McKinney; Kara L Fluharty; Robert R Mercer
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 1.902

Review 10.  Innovative pharmaceutical development based on unique properties of nanoscale delivery formulation.

Authors:  Anil Kumar; Fei Chen; Anbu Mozhi; Xu Zhang; Yuanyuan Zhao; Xiangdong Xue; Yanli Hao; Xiaoning Zhang; Paul C Wang; Xing-Jie Liang
Journal:  Nanoscale       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 7.790

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.