| Literature DB >> 32244505 |
Milena Georgieva1, Bela Vasileva1, Giorgio Speranza2, Dayong Wang3, Kalin Stoyanov4, Milena Draganova-Filipova5,6, Plamen Zagorchev7, Victoria Sarafian5,6, George Miloshev1, Natalia Krasteva8.
Abstract
Clinically, there is an urgent need to identify new therapeutic strategies for selectively treating cancer cells. One of the directions in this research is the development of biocompatible therapeutics that selectively targetEntities:
Keywords: GO; HepG2; cytotoxicity; genotoxicity; haGO-NH2; hydroxylamine; nanoparticle functionalization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32244505 PMCID: PMC7177364 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21072427
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1X-ray Photoemission Spectroscopy.The elemental composition of the nanoparticles was analyzed by X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS) on Axis DLD Ultra instrument (Kratos–Manchester, UK).
Figure 2Biophysical characterization of GO and haGO-NH2 nanoparticles. (A) TEM micrographs of GO and haGO-NH2. Images were acquired at 200 kV using Holey-carbon film on 300 mesh nickel grids. (B,C) Characterization of size and zeta potential of the nanoparticles in solution, were performed on a Zetatrac instrument (S3500; Microtrac, Largo, FL).
Figure 3Cell viability and morphology of HepG2 cells treated for 24 h with GO and haGO-NH2. (A,B) WST-8 (Sigma-Aldrich Co.) was used to evaluate cell viability - linear regression models for both types of GO NPs cytotoxic effect on HepG2 cells. (C) A panel of micrographs with neutral red stained HepG2 cells taken under phase contrast microscopy after 24 h of incubation of the cells with different concentrations of GO and haGO-NH2. Magnification 25×.
Figure 4Membrane integrity of HepG2 cells treated for 24 h with pristine and aminated GO. (A) Percentage of LDH release fromHepG2 cells after 24 h of incubation in the presenceof different concentrations of GO and haGO-NH2 nanoparticles. Cells treated with Triton X-100 were used as a positive control. The LDH release values were quantified as a percentage of the LDH release in Triton X-100 treated cells which was taken as 100%. Values are MEAN ± STDV from three repetitive experiments. (B) A panel of FDA-stained HepG2 cells taken under a fluorescent microscope after the cells were treated with increasing concentrations of GO and haGO-NH2 nanoparticles for 24 h. Magnification 10×; bar 100 μm.
Figure 5ROS production in HepG2 cells after treatment with GO nanoparticles. The production of intracellular ROS was measured using 2,7-dichlorofluorescin diacetate. HepG2 cells were seeded in 24-well plates and allowed for adherence. The fluorescence intensity of DCF was detected on a spectrofluorometer upon excitation at 485 nm and emission at 520 nm.
Figure 6Metabolic studies of HepG2 cells treated with GO and haGO-NH2 NPs by Seahorse analyses. (A) Mitochondrial oxygen consumption rate (OCR) of HepG2 cells treated with pristine and aminated GO NPs for 24 h in real time under basal conditions and in response to mitochondrial inhibitors (O, oligomycin; F, FCCP; A, antimycin). (B) Mitochondrial parameters of cells treated for 24 h with GO and haGO-NH2. (C) Representation of the ratio between the basal OCR and ECAR where the OCR was measured at the same time as ECAR for HepG2 cells after treatment with both types of NPs.
Figure 7SCGE for testing the genotoxicity potential of pristine and aminated GO nanoparticles on HepG2 cells. Graphical representation of the parameter “Comet length” as quantified by the software CometScore. Data are represented as MEAN±STDV, where n=100. Additionally, the given trend represents the moving average values for Comet length measured for all probes including the positive control for genotoxicity - HepG2 cells treated with 5 mM H2O2.
Comparison between different types of GO and aminated GO NPs studied in this study and in Krasteva et al., 2019 [20].
| Sample | Mean Size | ZP (mV) ± SE | Polarity | N1s | IC50 | IC50Colon 26 Cells |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 250 ± 68 nm | −24.5 ± 0.4 mV | negative | 0.99 | 1.71 ± 0.2 µg/mL | ||
| 1.5 ± 0.7 μm | ||||||
| (this study) | 515 ± 50 nm | −33.7 ± 0.4 mV | 62.97 ± 10 µg/mL | |||
| 3.6 ± 0.5 μm | ||||||
| 560 ± 300 nm | 38.5 ± 2.8 mV | positive | 3.47 | 1.26 ± 0.1 µg/mL | ||
| 594 ± 270 nm | −12.28 ± 0.6 mV | negative | 1.86 | 3.4 ± 0.7 |