Literature DB >> 34183029

Understanding the impact of more realistic low-dose, prolonged engineered nanomaterial exposure on genotoxicity using 3D models of the human liver.

Samantha V Llewellyn1, Gillian E Conway1, Ilaria Zanoni2, Amalie Kofoed Jørgensen3, Ume-Kulsoom Shah1, Didem Ag Seleci4,5, Johannes G Keller4,5, Jeong Won Kim6, Wendel Wohlleben4,5, Keld Alstrup Jensen3, Anna Costa2, Gareth J S Jenkins1, Martin J D Clift1, Shareen H Doak7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the continued integration of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) into everyday applications, it is important to understand their potential for inducing adverse human health effects. However, standard in vitro hazard characterisation approaches suffer limitations for evaluating ENM and so it is imperative to determine these potential hazards under more physiologically relevant and realistic exposure scenarios in target organ systems, to minimise the necessity for in vivo testing. The aim of this study was to determine if acute (24 h) and prolonged (120 h) exposures to five ENMs (TiO2, ZnO, Ag, BaSO4 and CeO2) would have a significantly different toxicological outcome (cytotoxicity, (pro-)inflammatory and genotoxic response) upon 3D human HepG2 liver spheroids. In addition, this study evaluated whether a more realistic, prolonged fractionated and repeated ENM dosing regime induces a significantly different toxicity outcome in liver spheroids as compared to a single, bolus prolonged exposure.
RESULTS: Whilst it was found that the five ENMs did not impede liver functionality (e.g. albumin and urea production), induce cytotoxicity or an IL-8 (pro-)inflammatory response, all were found to cause significant genotoxicity following acute exposure. Most statistically significant genotoxic responses were not dose-dependent, with the exception of TiO2. Interestingly, the DNA damage effects observed following acute exposures, were not mirrored in the prolonged exposures, where only 0.2-5.0 µg/mL of ZnO ENMs were found to elicit significant (p ≤ 0.05) genotoxicity. When fractionated, repeated exposure regimes were performed with the test ENMs, no significant (p ≥ 0.05) difference was observed when compared to the single, bolus exposure regime. There was < 5.0% cytotoxicity observed across all exposures, and the mean difference in IL-8 cytokine release and genotoxicity between exposure regimes was 3.425 pg/mL and 0.181%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, whilst there was no difference between a single, bolus or fractionated, repeated ENM prolonged exposure regimes upon the toxicological output of 3D HepG2 liver spheroids, there was a difference between acute and prolonged exposures. This study highlights the importance of evaluating more realistic ENM exposures, thereby providing a future in vitro approach to better support ENM hazard assessment in a routine and easily accessible manner.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Engineered nanomaterials; Genotoxicity; In vitro liver models; Nanotoxicology; Physiologically relevant exposure

Year:  2021        PMID: 34183029     DOI: 10.1186/s12951-021-00938-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nanobiotechnology        ISSN: 1477-3155            Impact factor:   10.435


  6 in total

1.  Effect of hypoxia on gene expression by human hepatocytes (HepG2).

Authors:  Larry A Sonna; Michael L Cullivan; Holly K Sheldon; Richard E Pratt; Craig M Lilly
Journal:  Physiol Genomics       Date:  2003-02-06       Impact factor: 3.107

2.  Rapid formation of plasma protein corona critically affects nanoparticle pathophysiology.

Authors:  Stefan Tenzer; Dominic Docter; Jörg Kuharev; Anna Musyanovych; Verena Fetz; Rouven Hecht; Florian Schlenk; Dagmar Fischer; Klytaimnistra Kiouptsi; Christoph Reinhardt; Katharina Landfester; Hansjörg Schild; Michael Maskos; Shirley K Knauer; Roland H Stauber
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2013-09-22       Impact factor: 39.213

3.  Physical-chemical aspects of protein corona: relevance to in vitro and in vivo biological impacts of nanoparticles.

Authors:  Marco P Monopoli; Dorota Walczyk; Abigail Campbell; Giuliano Elia; Iseult Lynch; Francesca Baldelli Bombelli; Kenneth A Dawson
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 15.419

4.  Influence of agglomeration and specific lung lining lipid/protein interaction on short-term inhalation toxicity.

Authors:  Wendel Wohlleben; Marc D Driessen; Simon Raesch; Ulrich F Schaefer; Christine Schulze; Bernhard von Vacano; Antje Vennemann; Martin Wiemann; Christian A Ruge; Herbert Platsch; Sarah Mues; Rainer Ossig; Janina M Tomm; Jürgen Schnekenburger; Thomas A J Kuhlbusch; Andreas Luch; Claus-Michael Lehr; Andrea Haase
Journal:  Nanotoxicology       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 5.913

5.  In vitro toxicity of silver nanoparticles at noncytotoxic doses to HepG2 human hepatoma cells.

Authors:  Koji Kawata; Masato Osawa; Satoshi Okabe
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2009-08-01       Impact factor: 9.028

6.  Differences in the biokinetics of inhaled nano- versus micrometer-sized particles.

Authors:  Wolfgang G Kreyling; Manuela Semmler-Behnke; Shinji Takenaka; Winfried Möller
Journal:  Acc Chem Res       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 22.384

  6 in total
  6 in total

1.  Dissolution Rate of Nanomaterials Determined by Ions and Particle Size under Lysosomal Conditions: Contributions to Standardization of Simulant Fluids and Analytical Methods.

Authors:  Ilaria Zanoni; Johannes G Keller; Ursula G Sauer; Philipp Müller; Lan Ma-Hock; Keld A Jensen; Anna Luisa Costa; Wendel Wohlleben
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 3.973

Review 2.  Experimental and Computational Nanotoxicology-Complementary Approaches for Nanomaterial Hazard Assessment.

Authors:  Valérie Forest
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 5.719

Review 3.  Nanosafety: An Evolving Concept to Bring the Safest Possible Nanomaterials to Society and Environment.

Authors:  Filipa Lebre; Nivedita Chatterjee; Samantha Costa; Eli Fernández-de-Gortari; Carla Lopes; João Meneses; Luís Ortiz; Ana R Ribeiro; Vânia Vilas-Boas; Ernesto Alfaro-Moreno
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 5.719

4.  Chronic effects of two rutile TiO2 nanomaterials in human intestinal and hepatic cell lines.

Authors:  Pégah Jalili; Benjamin-Christoph Krause; Rachelle Lanceleur; Agnès Burel; Harald Jungnickel; Alfonso Lampen; Peter Laux; Andreas Luch; Valérie Fessard; Kevin Hogeveen
Journal:  Part Fibre Toxicol       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 9.112

5.  Influence of Pre-Dispersion Media on the Batch Reactor Dissolution Behavior of Al2O3 Coated TiO2 (NM-104) and Two ZnO (NM-110 and NM-111) Nanomaterials in Biologically Relevant Test Media.

Authors:  Else Holmfred; Jens J Sloth; Katrin Loeschner; Keld Alstrup Jensen
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 5.076

6.  How Structured Metadata Acquisition Contributes to the Reproducibility of Nanosafety Studies: Evaluation by a Round-Robin Test.

Authors:  Linda Elberskirch; Adriana Sofranko; Julia Liebing; Norbert Riefler; Kunigunde Binder; Christian Bonatto Minella; Matthias Razum; Lutz Mädler; Klaus Unfried; Roel P F Schins; Annette Kraegeloh; Christoph van Thriel
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 5.076

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.