Literature DB >> 25580680

Genotoxicity of metal oxide nanomaterials: review of recent data and discussion of possible mechanisms.

Nazanin Golbamaki1, Bakhtiyor Rasulev, Antonio Cassano, Richard L Marchese Robinson, Emilio Benfenati, Jerzy Leszczynski, Mark T D Cronin.   

Abstract

Nanotechnology has rapidly entered into human society, revolutionized many areas, including technology, medicine and cosmetics. This progress is due to the many valuable and unique properties that nanomaterials possess. In turn, these properties might become an issue of concern when considering potentially uncontrolled release to the environment. The rapid development of new nanomaterials thus raises questions about their impact on the environment and human health. This review focuses on the potential of nanomaterials to cause genotoxicity and summarizes recent genotoxicity studies on metal oxide/silica nanomaterials. Though the number of genotoxicity studies on metal oxide/silica nanomaterials is still limited, this endpoint has recently received more attention for nanomaterials, and the number of related publications has increased. An analysis of these peer reviewed publications over nearly two decades shows that the test most employed to evaluate the genotoxicity of these nanomaterials is the comet assay, followed by micronucleus, Ames and chromosome aberration tests. Based on the data studied, we concluded that in the majority of the publications analysed in this review, the metal oxide (or silica) nanoparticles of the same core chemical composition did not show different genotoxicity study calls (i.e. positive or negative) in the same test, although some results are inconsistent and need to be confirmed by additional experiments. Where the results are conflicting, it may be due to the following reasons: (1) variation in size of the nanoparticles; (2) variations in size distribution; (3) various purities of nanomaterials; (4) variation in surface areas for nanomaterials with the same average size; (5) differences in coatings; (6) differences in crystal structures of the same types of nanomaterials; (7) differences in size of aggregates in solution/media; (8) differences in assays; (9) different concentrations of nanomaterials in assay tests. Indeed, due to the observed inconsistencies in the recent literature and the lack of adherence to appropriate, standardized test methods, reliable genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials is still challenging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25580680     DOI: 10.1039/c4nr06670g

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nanoscale        ISSN: 2040-3364            Impact factor:   7.790


  36 in total

1.  CeO2 nanoparticle fate in environmental conditions and toxicity on a freshwater predator species: a microcosm study.

Authors:  Agathe Bour; Florence Mouchet; Stéphanie Cadarsi; Jérôme Silvestre; David Baqué; Laury Gauthier; Eric Pinelli
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  How should the completeness and quality of curated nanomaterial data be evaluated?

Authors:  Richard L Marchese Robinson; Iseult Lynch; Willie Peijnenburg; John Rumble; Fred Klaessig; Clarissa Marquardt; Hubert Rauscher; Tomasz Puzyn; Ronit Purian; Christoffer Åberg; Sandra Karcher; Hanne Vriens; Peter Hoet; Mark D Hoover; Christine Ogilvie Hendren; Stacey L Harper
Journal:  Nanoscale       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 7.790

3.  In Vitro Methods for Assessing Nanoparticle Toxicity.

Authors:  Dustin T Savage; J Zach Hilt; Thomas D Dziubla
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2019

4.  Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: an in vitro study of DNA binding, chromosome aberration assay, and comet assay.

Authors:  Suhani Patel; Palak Patel; Sonal R Bakshi
Journal:  Cytotechnology       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 2.058

5.  Drosophila as a Suitable In Vivo Model in the Safety Assessment of Nanomaterials.

Authors:  Eşref Demir; Fatma Turna Demir; Ricard Marcos
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 2.622

6.  Identifying diverse metal oxide nanomaterials with lethal effects on embryonic zebrafish using machine learning.

Authors:  Richard Liam Marchese Robinson; Haralambos Sarimveis; Philip Doganis; Xiaodong Jia; Marianna Kotzabasaki; Christiana Gousiadou; Stacey Lynn Harper; Terry Wilkins
Journal:  Beilstein J Nanotechnol       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 3.649

Review 7.  Emerging metrology for high-throughput nanomaterial genotoxicology.

Authors:  Bryant C Nelson; Christa W Wright; Yuko Ibuki; Maria Moreno-Villanueva; Hanna L Karlsson; Giel Hendriks; Christopher M Sims; Neenu Singh; Shareen H Doak
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 8.  Smart micro/nanoparticles in stimulus-responsive drug/gene delivery systems.

Authors:  Mahdi Karimi; Amir Ghasemi; Parham Sahandi Zangabad; Reza Rahighi; S Masoud Moosavi Basri; H Mirshekari; M Amiri; Z Shafaei Pishabad; A Aslani; M Bozorgomid; D Ghosh; A Beyzavi; A Vaseghi; A R Aref; L Haghani; S Bahrami; Michael R Hamblin
Journal:  Chem Soc Rev       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 54.564

9.  Toxicity assessment of metal oxide nanomaterials using in vitro screening and murine acute inhalation studies.

Authors:  Sudartip Areecheewakul; Andrea Adamcakova-Dodd; Brittany E Givens; Benjamin R Steines; Yifang Wang; David K Meyerholz; Nathanial J Parizek; Ralph Altmaier; Ezazul Haque; Patrick T O'Shaughnessy; Aliasger K Salem; Peter S Thorne
Journal:  NanoImpact       Date:  2020-02-20

10.  Molecular and physiological responses to titanium dioxide and cerium oxide nanoparticles in Arabidopsis.

Authors:  Laxminath Tumburu; Christian P Andersen; Paul T Rygiewicz; Jay R Reichman
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 3.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.