| Literature DB >> 29051447 |
André Jochums1, Elsa Friehs2, Franziska Sambale3, Antonina Lavrentieva4, Detlef Bahnemann5,6, Thomas Scheper7.
Abstract
The uptake of nanomaterials into different cell types is a central pharmacological issue for the determination of nanotoxicity as well as for the development of drug delivery strategies. Most responses of the cells depend on their intracellular interactions with nanoparticles (NPs). Uptake behavior can be precisely investigated in vitro, with sensitive high throughput methods such as flow cytometry. In this study, we investigated two different standard cell lines, human lung carcinoma (A549) and mouse fibroblast (NIH/3T3) cells, regarding their uptake behavior of titanium dioxide NPs. Cells were incubated with different concentrations of TiO₂ NPs and samples were taken at certain time points to compare the uptake kinetics of both cell lines. Samples were analyzed with the help of flow cytometry by studying changes in the side and forward scattering signal. To additionally enable a detection via fluorescence, NPs were labeled with the fluorescent dye fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) and propidium iodide (PI). We found that NIH/3T3 cells take up the studied NPs more efficiently than A549 cells. These findings were supported by time-lapse microscopic imaging of the cells incubated with TiO₂ NPs. Our results confirm that the uptake behavior of individual cell types has to be considered before interpreting any results of nanomaterial studies.Entities:
Keywords: flow cytometry; fluorescence labeling; light scatter; nanoparticle-uptake; time lapse imaging; titanium dioxide
Year: 2017 PMID: 29051447 PMCID: PMC5634699 DOI: 10.3390/toxics5030015
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxics ISSN: 2305-6304
Figure 1Fluorescence imaging of NIH/3T3 cells incubated with 50 µg mL−1 FITC-TiO2 NPs (green) for 4 h and stained with DAPI (blue). Magnification objective 20×.
Figure 2Density Plots of SSC and FSC signals of A549 and NIH/3T3 cells. Cells were incubated with each sample for 24 h. (a) A549 cells with 0 µg mL−1 FITC-TiO2; (b) A549 cells with 25 µg mL−1 FITC-TiO2; (c) NIH/3T3 cells with 0 µg mL−1 FITC-TiO2; (d) NIH/3T3 cells with 25 µg mL−1 FITC-TiO2.
Figure 3Side scatter signals of A549 and NIH/33 cells. (a) SSC after incubation with different FITC-TiO2 NP concentrations after 24 h incubation; (b) SSC signal kinetic of FITC-TiO2 NPs (12.5 µg mL−1).
Figure 4Forward scattering signal of A549 and NIH/3T3 cells. (a) Histogram of FSC signal with 0 µg mL−1 and 25 µg mL−1 FITC-TiO2 and 24 h incubation (NIH/3T3); (b) Histogram of FSC signal after 0 h and 24 h incubation of 12.5 µg mL−1 FITC-TiO2 (NIH/3T3); (c) Forward scatter after incubation with different FITC-TiO2 NPs concentrations (24 h incubation); (d) Uptake kinetic of FITC-TiO2 NPs (12.5 µg mL−1).
Figure 5Fluorescence signal of A549 and NIH/3T3 cells. (a) Histogram of fluorescence signal with 0 µg mL−1 and 25 µg mL−1 TiO2 NPs (NIH/3T3); (b) Histogram of fluorescence signal after 0 h and 24 h incubation with 12.5 µg mL−1 FITC-TiO2 NPs (NIH/3T3); (c) Fluorescence signal after incubation with different FITC-TiO2 NP concentrations for 24 h; (d) Uptake kinetic of FITC-TiO2 NPs with 12.5 µg·mL−1, signal has been normalized to control (cells without NPs).
Figure 6Time-lapse microscopic imaging of A549 cells incubated with 12.5 µg mL−1 FITC-TiO2 NPs for 24 h. Magnification 20×.
Figure 7Time-lapse microscopic imaging of NIH/3T3 cells incubated with 12.5 µg mL−1 FITC-TiO2 NPs for 24 h. Magnification 20×.
Figure 8Fluorescence signal of A549 and NIH/3T3 cells after incubation with different TiO2 NP concentrations.