Literature DB >> 26682436

Differential Genomic Effects on Signaling Pathways by Two Different CeO2 Nanoparticles in HepG2 Cells.

Sheau-Fung Thai, Kathleen A Wallace, Carlton P Jones, Hongzu Ren, Benjamin T Castellon, James Crooks, Eric A Grulke, Kirk T Kitchin.   

Abstract

To investigate genomic effects, human liver hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2) cells were exposed for three days to two different forms of nanoparticles both composed of CeO2 (0.3, 3 and 30 μg/mL). The two CeO2 nanoparticles had dry primary particle sizes of 8 nanometers {(M) made by NanoAmor} and 58 nanometers {(L) made by Alfa Aesar} and differ in various other physical-chemical properties as well. The smaller particle has stronger antioxidant properties, probably because it has higher Ce3+ levels on the particle surface, as well as more surface area per unit weight. Nanoparticle M showed a normal dose-response pattern with 363, 633 and 1273 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) at 0.3, 3 and 30 μg/mL, respectively. In contrast, nanoparticle L showed a puzzling dose-response pattern with the most DEGs found in the lowest exposure group with 1049, 303 and 323 DEGs at 0.3, 3 and 30 μg/mL, respectively. This systems biological genomic study showed that the major altered pathways by these two nano cerium oxides were protein synthesis, stress response, proliferation/cell cycle, cytoskeleton remodeling/actin polymerization and cellular metabolism. Some of the canonical pathways affected were mTOR signaling, EIF2 signaling, fatty acid activation, G2/M DNA damage checkpoint regulation, glycolysis and protein ubiquitination. These two CeO2 nanoparticles differed considerably in their genomic effects. M is more active than L in respect to altering the pathways of mitochondrial dysfunction, acute phase response, apoptosis, 14-3-3 mediated signaling, remodeling of epithelial adherens junction signaling, actin nucleation by ARP-WASP complex, altered TCA cycle and elevated fatty acid concentrations by metabolomics. However, L is more active than M in respect to the pathways of NRF2-mediated stress response and hepatic fibrosis/hepatic stellate cell activation. One major difference in the cell response to nano M and L is that nano M caused the Warburg effect while nano L did not.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26682436     DOI: 10.1166/jnn.2015.11631

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nanosci Nanotechnol        ISSN: 1533-4880


  6 in total

1.  Differential Effects of Nano TiO₂ and CeO₂ on Normal Human Lung Epithelial Cells In Vitro.

Authors:  Sheau-Fung Thai; Carlton P Jones; Garret B Nelson; Beena Vallanat; Micaela Killius; James L Crooks; William O Ward; Carl F Blackman; Jeffrey A Ross
Journal:  J Nanosci Nanotechnol       Date:  2019-11-01

2.  Biochemical effects of copper nanomaterials in human hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2) cells.

Authors:  Kirk T Kitchin; Judy A Richards; Brian L Robinette; Kathleen A Wallace; Najwa H Coates; Benjamin T Castellon; Eric A Grulke
Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol       Date:  2022-07-25       Impact factor: 6.819

3.  Biochemical Effects of Silver Nanomaterials in Human Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HepG2) Cells.

Authors:  Kirk T Kitchin; Judy A Richards; Brian L Robinette; Kathleen A Wallace; Najwa H Coates; Benjamin T Castellon; Eric A Grulke; Jiahui Kou; Rajender S Varma
Journal:  J Nanosci Nanotechnol       Date:  2020-09-01

Review 4.  Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles: A New Therapeutic Tool in Liver Diseases.

Authors:  Gregori Casals; Meritxell Perramón; Eudald Casals; Irene Portolés; Guillermo Fernández-Varo; Manuel Morales-Ruiz; Victor Puntes; Wladimiro Jiménez
Journal:  Antioxidants (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-24

5.  Comparative study of the effects of gold and silver nanoparticles on the metabolism of human dermal fibroblasts.

Authors:  Yan Huang; Xiaoying Lü; Rong Chen; Ye Chen
Journal:  Regen Biomater       Date:  2020-01-25

6.  Gene Expression and Transcriptome Profiling of Changes in a Cancer Cell Line Post-Exposure to Cadmium Telluride Quantum Dots: Possible Implications in Oncogenesis.

Authors:  Mohammed S Aldughaim; Mashael R Al-Anazi; Marie Fe F Bohol; Dilek Colak; Hani Alothaid; Salma Majid Wakil; Samya T Hagos; Daoud Ali; Saud Alarifi; Sashmita Rout; Saad Alkahtani; Mohammed N Al-Ahdal; Ahmed A Al-Qahtani
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 2.658

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.