| Literature DB >> 26011447 |
Akhilesh Dubey1, Mukunda Goswami1, Kamalendra Yadav2, Dharmendra Chaudhary1.
Abstract
Metallic nanoparEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26011447 PMCID: PMC4444277 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127493
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Photomicrograph of Gill cell line from Wallago attu (WAG); (A) Gill explant of W. attu (100X); (B) Cells of mixed morphology at paasage 5; (C) WAG cells at passage 40 (100X) (D) WAG cells at passage 40 (200X).
Fig 2Characterization of WAG cell line; (A) amplification of 16S and COI DNA sequence (Lane 1and 6:PCR negative control; Lane 2: COI gene from WAG cells; Lane 3: COI gene from W. attu muscle tissue; Lane M: 100bp DNA ladder; Lane 4: 16S rRNA gene from WAG cells; Lane 5: 16S rRNA gene from W. attu muscle tissue); (B) chromosome spread of WAG cells at passage 40; (C) Morphological characterization of WAG fibroblastic cell line by Vimentin-FITC (400X); (D) Transfection of WAG cells using EGFP vector (400X).
Fig 3Electron micrograph of nanoparticles; (A) and (C) Scanning Electron image of TiO2 and ZnO respectively in water as provided by the manufacturer (with sonication); (B) and (D) Scanning Transmission Electron image of TiO2 and ZnO respectively, dispersed in L-15/ex medium through sonication.
Physical properties of investigated metallic nanopartciles.
| S. No. | Nanoparticle | Source | Dia (nm) | Average Dia (nm) (Observed) | Agglomeration State | Measured Dia (nm) (Zaetasizer) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TiO2 | Sigma Aldrich | <150 | 35.21±14.1 | aggregate | 249.7 |
| 2 | ZnO | Sigma Aldrich | <100 | 25.12±9.2 | aggregate | 204.6 |
Fig 4Cellular uptake of TiO2 nanoparticles is shown with the help of Scanning Transmission Electron image which was confirmed with EDAX analysis at several regions within the cell.
Nanoparticles inside the cells are marked with the arrows. Carbon (C), Oxygen (O), Phosphorous (P), Sodium (Na), Chlorine (Cl) etc. are the peaks observed for cellular components with Ti peak representing the presence of uptaken nanoparticles. The Cu peak is because of the copper grid used in the experiment.
Fig 5Cellular uptake of ZnO nanoparticles is shown with the help of Scanning Transmission Electron image which was confirmed with EDAX analysis at several regions within the cell.
Nanoparticles inside the cells are marked with the arrows. Carbon (C), Oxygen (O), Nitrogen (N), Phosphorous (P), Sodium (Na), Chlorine (Cl) etc. are the peaks observed for cellular components with Zn peak representing the presence of uptaken nanoparticles. The Cu peak is because of the copper grid used in the experiment.
Fig 6Interaction of nanoparticles with WAG cells A: TiO2; B: ZnO; C: Negative control.
Nanoparticles inside the cells are shown with red arrows whereas the background area without cells is marked with yellow arrows. Complete absence of attached nanoparticles in background area confirms that the nanoparticles shown are inside the cells.
Fig 7Drug dose response curves for the endpoint cytotoxicity assays upon exposure to nanoparticles A: MTT; B: NR; C: LDH assay.
Cytotoxicity effects two nano-sized metal oxides on WAG cells after 24 h incubation as quantified with the MTT, NR and LDH assay.
| Nanoparticle | Exposure Period and endpoint | IC50(mg/L) | Hill slope | R2 value | 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 (mg/L) | Hill slope | |||||
|
| 24 hour MTT assay | 25.29±0.12 | -1.59±0.06 | 0.958 | 21.27 to 31.18 | -2.01 to -1.16 |
| 24 hour Neutral Red uptake assay | 34.99±0.09 | -1.41±0.13 | 0.963 | 30.27 to 40.18 | -1.84 to -1.07 | |
| 24 hour LDH assay | 35.06±0.09 | 1.51±0.23 | 0.945 | 31.05 to 19.34 | 1.97 to 1.04 | |
|
| 24 hour MTT assay | 5.716±0.1 | -1.44±0.08 | 0.986 | 5.31 to 6.12 | -1.89 to -1.11 |
| 24 hour Neutral Red uptake assay | 3.160±0.1 | -1.33±0.1 | 0.964 | 2.68 to 3.51 | -1.74 to -0.97 | |
| 24 hour LDH assay | 5.57±0.12 | 1.392±0.11 | 0.952 | 5.16 to 6.08 | 1.83 to 0.98 | |
Fig 8Comet assay analysis done for evaluating the DNA damage in cells upon exposure of nanoparticles; A: untreated WAG cell; B: nanoparticles treated WAG cell; C: % tail DNA observed in WAG cells after exposure to different concentration of nanoparticles.
Fig 9Micronucleus analysis done for evaluation of DNA damage in cells upon exposure to nanoparticles: A: untreated control WAG cell; B: treated WAG cell; C: % micronuclei in binucleated WAG cells after exposure to different concentration of nanoparticles.
Fig 10Detection of ROS (superoxide ion) by reduction of NBT in nanoparticle treated WAG cells.
Fig 11Evaluation of oxidative stress biomarkers against nanoparticles exposure to WAG cell line.
A: MDA Concentration of nanoparticle treated WAG cells; B: Protein carbonyl content of nanoparticle treated WAG cells; C: SOD Activity of nanoparticle treated WAG cells; D: Catalase activity of nanoparticle treated WAG cells; E: Total Glutathione content of nanoparticle treated WAG cells; F: Total Antioxidant capacity of nanoparticle treated WAG cells.