Literature DB >> 19114091

Genotoxicity of nanomaterials: DNA damage and micronuclei induced by carbon nanotubes and graphite nanofibres in human bronchial epithelial cells in vitro.

Hanna K Lindberg1, Ghita C-M Falck, Satu Suhonen, Minnamari Vippola, Esa Vanhala, Julia Catalán, Kai Savolainen, Hannu Norppa.   

Abstract

Despite the increasing industrial use of different nanomaterials, data on their genotoxicity are scant. In the present study, we examined the potential genotoxic effects of carbon nanotubes (CNTs; >50% single-walled, approximately 40% other CNTs; 1.1 nm x 0.5-100 microm; Sigma-Aldrich) and graphite nanofibres (GNFs; 95%; outer diameter 80-200 nm, inner diameter 30-50 nm, length 5-20 microm; Sigma-Aldrich) in vitro. Genotoxicity was assessed by the single cell gel electrophoresis (comet) assay and the micronucleus assay (cytokinesis-block method) in human bronchial epithelial BEAS 2B cells cultured for 24h, 48h, or 72h with various doses (1-100 microg/cm(2), corresponding to 3.8-380 microg/ml) of the carbon nanomaterials. In the comet assay, CNTs induced a dose-dependent increase in DNA damage at all treatment times, with a statistically significant effect starting at the lowest dose tested. GNFs increased DNA damage at all doses in the 24-h treatment, at two doses (40 and 100 microg/cm(2)) in the 48-h treatment (dose-dependent effect) and at four doses (lowest 10 microg/cm(2)) in the 72-h treatment. In the micronucleus assay, no increase in micronucleated cells was observed with either of the nanomaterials after the 24-h treatment or with CNTs after the 72-h treatment. The 48-h treatment caused a significant increase in micronucleated cells at three doses (lowest 10 microg/cm(2)) of CNTs and at two doses (5 and 10 microg/cm(2)) of GNFs. The 72-h treatment with GNFs increased micronucleated cells at four doses (lowest 10 microg/cm(2)). No dose-dependent effects were seen in the micronucleus assay. The presence of carbon nanomaterial on the microscopic slides disturbed the micronucleus analysis and made it impossible at levels higher than 20 microg/cm(2) of GNFs in the 24-h and 48-h treatments. In conclusion, our results suggest that both CNTs and GNFs are genotoxic in human bronchial epithelial BEAS 2B cells in vitro. This activity may be due to the fibrous nature of these carbon nanomaterials with a possible contribution by catalyst metals present in the materials-Co and Mo in CNTs (<5wt.%) and Fe (<3wt.%) in GNFs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19114091     DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2008.11.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Lett        ISSN: 0378-4274            Impact factor:   4.372


  45 in total

1.  Exposure to nanoparticles and hormesis.

Authors:  Ivo Iavicoli; Edward J Calabrese; Marc A Nascarella
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 2.658

2.  Long-term effects of carbon containing engineered nanomaterials and asbestos in the lung: one year postexposure comparisons.

Authors:  Anna A Shvedova; Naveena Yanamala; Elena R Kisin; Alexey V Tkach; Ashley R Murray; Ann Hubbs; Madalina M Chirila; Phouthone Keohavong; Lyudmila P Sycheva; Valerian E Kagan; Vincent Castranova
Journal:  Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 5.464

3.  Genotoxicity of carbon nanofibers: are they potentially more or less dangerous than carbon nanotubes or asbestos?

Authors:  E R Kisin; A R Murray; L Sargent; D Lowry; M Chirila; K J Siegrist; D Schwegler-Berry; S Leonard; V Castranova; B Fadeel; V E Kagan; A A Shvedova
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 4.219

Review 4.  The effects of carbon nanotubes on lung and dermal cellular behaviors.

Authors:  Sudjit Luanpitpong; Liying Wang; Yon Rojanasakul
Journal:  Nanomedicine (Lond)       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 5.307

Review 5.  A perspective on the potential risks of emerging contaminants to human and environmental health.

Authors:  Lílian Cristina Pereira; Alecsandra Oliveira de Souza; Mariana Furio Franco Bernardes; Murilo Pazin; Maria Júlia Tasso; Paulo Henrique Pereira; Daniel Junqueira Dorta
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 6.  Safe clinical use of carbon nanotubes as innovative biomaterials.

Authors:  Naoto Saito; Hisao Haniu; Yuki Usui; Kaoru Aoki; Kazuo Hara; Seiji Takanashi; Masayuki Shimizu; Nobuyo Narita; Masanori Okamoto; Shinsuke Kobayashi; Hiroki Nomura; Hiroyuki Kato; Naoyuki Nishimura; Seiichi Taruta; Morinobu Endo
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 60.622

Review 7.  Evaluating the mechanistic evidence and key data gaps in assessing the potential carcinogenicity of carbon nanotubes and nanofibers in humans.

Authors:  Eileen D Kuempel; Marie-Claude Jaurand; Peter Møller; Yasuo Morimoto; Norihiro Kobayashi; Kent E Pinkerton; Linda M Sargent; Roel C H Vermeulen; Bice Fubini; Agnes B Kane
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 5.635

Review 8.  Applied Nanotoxicology.

Authors:  David W Hobson; Stephen M Roberts; Anna A Shvedova; David B Warheit; Georgia K Hinkley; Robin C Guy
Journal:  Int J Toxicol       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.032

9.  Raman spectroscopy analysis and mapping the biodistribution of inhaled carbon nanotubes in the lungs and blood of mice.

Authors:  Taylor Ingle; Enkeleda Dervishi; Alexandru R Biris; Thikra Mustafa; Roger A Buchanan; Alexandru S Biris
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 3.446

10.  Mesothelioma: Do asbestos and carbon nanotubes pose the same health risk?

Authors:  Marie-Claude F Jaurand; Annie Renier; Julien Daubriac
Journal:  Part Fibre Toxicol       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 9.400

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.