| Literature DB >> 31739797 |
Ali Kermanizadeh1, Trine Berthing2, Ewa Guzniczak3, Melanie Wheeldon3, Graeme Whyte3, Ulla Vogel2, Wolfgang Moritz4, Vicki Stone3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With ever-increasing exposure to engineered nanomaterials (NMs), there is an urgent need to evaluate the probability of consequential adverse effects. The potential for NM translocation to distal organs is a realistic prospect, with the liver being one of the most important target organs. Traditional in vitro or ex vivo hepatic toxicology models are often limiting (i.e. short life-span, reduced metabolic activity, lacking important cell populations, etc.). In this study, we scrutinize a 3D human liver microtissue (MT) model (composed of primary hepatocytes and non-parenchymal cells). This unique experiment benefits from long-term (3 weeks) repeated very low exposure concentrations, as well as incorporation of recovery periods (up to 2 weeks), in an attempt to account for the liver's recovery capacity in vivo. As a means of assessing the toxicological potential of NMs, cell cytotoxicity (cell membrane integrity and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) activity), pro/anti-inflammatory response and hepatic function were investigated.Entities:
Keywords: 3D primary human multi-cellular liver microtissue; In vitro hepatotoxicology; In vitro vs. in vivo comparisons; Kupffer cells
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31739797 PMCID: PMC6862829 DOI: 10.1186/s12989-019-0326-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Part Fibre Toxicol ISSN: 1743-8977 Impact factor: 9.400
NM treatment and toxicological end-points measured in the repeated exposure experiments over a period of 3 weeks
| Experiment A | End-points investigated |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | |
| Material dosing | |
| Medium replacement at | |
| 2 weeks recovery (medium change every other day) - collect supernatant | |
| Experiment B | End-points investigated |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | – |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | – |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | – |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | |
| Material dosing | |
| Medium replacement at | |
| Material dosing | Treatment missed |
| Medium replacement at | |
| Material dosing | |
| Medium replacement at | |
| 1 week recovery (medium change every other day) - collect supernatant | |
| Experiment C | End-points investigated |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | – |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | – |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | – |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | – |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | – |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | – |
| Material dosing | Treatment missed |
| Medium replacement at | |
| Material dosing | – |
| Medium replacement at | |
| Material dosing | |
| Medium replacement at | |
| Material dosing | |
| Medium replacement at | |
| Material dosing | |
| Collect supernatant | |
Main physical and chemical properties of investigated NMs (adapted and reproduced from 18 to 20)
| NM code | NM type | Phase | Primary size (nm) | Surface area | Known coating | Mean size in liver maintenance medium (DLS) (nm)a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JRCNM01005a | TiO2 | Rutile-anatase | 15–24 | 46 | None | 224.6 233.7 238.3 |
| JRCNM01101a | ZnO | – | 152 | 15 | Triethoxy-caprlsilane | 250.3 255.8 255.4 |
| NM212 | CeO2 | Irregular and non-homogeneous - cubic cerionite | 49 | 27 | None | 274.5 269.3 258.9 |
| DQ12 | Silica | Quartz | – | 10.1 | None | 479.8 468.5 466.9 |
DLS Dynamic light scatter, XRD X-ray diffraction
aSize in biological media measured within 30 min of sonication
Fig. 1Cytotoxicity in human liver MT following exposures to a panel of engineered NMs for up 3 weeks as measured by AK release via ToxiLight™ cytotoxicity assay (NM treatments 1.25–10 μg/ml). a Experiment A - 7 days of NM dosing following 2 weeks of recovery; b Experiment B - 14 days of NM dosing following 1 week of recovery and c Experiment C - 21 days of NM dosing with no recovery period. The Triton data depicts 100% cell death ± SEM. The values represent mean ± SEM (n = 3) with significance indicated by * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.005 for ageing effects compared to day 1 negative control, $ p < 0.05 and $$ p < 0.005 signifying NM induced and £ p < 0.05 and ££ p < 0.005 NM-induced effects in addition to the ageing effect
Fig. 2Albumin production from human liver MT following exposure to a panel of engineered NMs (NM treatments 1.25–5 μg/ml) for up 19 days. The values represent mean ± SEM (n = 3) with significance indicated by * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.005 for ageing effects compared to 3 days negative control, $ p < 0.05 and $$ p < 0.005 signifying NM-induced and £ p < 0.05 and ££ p < 0.005 NM effects in addition to the ageing effects
Fig. 3IL6, TNF-α, IL8 and IL10 levels from NM exposed human liver MT. The tissues were exposed to cell medium (c) or repeated concentrations of NMs (NM treatments 1.25–5 μg/ml) for up to 3 weeks - a IL6, b TNF-α, c IL8 and d IL10. The values represent mean ± SEM (n = 3) with significance indicated by * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.005 of NM-induced effects compared to negative control
Fig. 4Representative brightfield and enhanced darkfield images of the distribution of NMs in the multi-cellar primary human liver MT after 3 weeks of cell culture - a negative control, b TiO2− 1.25 μg/ml, c CeO2–1.25 μg/ml and d CeO2–5 μg/ml. H&E stained cross sections, Scale bar - 20 μm
Incidences of liver MT with internalized CeO2 and TiO2 NM at 3 weeks
| MT exposure | Representative image in Fig. | MT with internalized NMs | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative control | a | (1)/13 | Small agglomerate detected in one of the 13 MT investigated. Due to the fact, that the material was not present in any of the other sections, it is considered as an artefact. |
| TiO2–1.25 μg/ml | b | 5/5 | |
| TiO2–5 μg/ml | 2/2 | ||
| CeO2–1.25 μg/ml | c | 8/8 | |
| CeO2–5 μg/ml | d | 8/8 |
Fig. 5The surface visualisation of MT treated with fluorescently linked polymer microspheres at 24 h. The scale bar corresponds to 200 μm and in the fluorescent images, orange colour indicates presence of fluorescent polymer microspheres and blue is an effect of autofluorescence
The main nanotoxicological advantages and disadvantages of multi-cellular primary 3D liver MT in the assessment of the tissue as a potential in vivo surrogate
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|
| Human tissue | Cost of plates can be potentially prohibitive to academia |
| Primary cells | Toxicological assessment beyond 2 weeks might not be ideal in a nano context |
| Incorporation of numerous liver cell populations - hepatocytes, Kupffer cells and endothelial cells | There is no physiological structure to the tissue - cells aggregate randomly |
| High metabolic activity | |
| In vitro model which allows for repeated long term exposure of xenobiotics | |
| Little variability between MT in wells and plates | |
| Scaffold-free with 100% endogenous extracellular matrix |