| Literature DB >> 34207693 |
Benjamin J Swartzwelter1, Craig Mayall2, Andi Alijagic3, Francesco Barbero4, Eleonora Ferrari5, Szabolcs Hernadi6, Sara Michelini7, Natividad Isabel Navarro Pacheco8, Alessandra Prinelli9, Elmer Swart10, Manon Auguste11.
Abstract
Many components of the innate immune system are evolutionarily conserved and shared across many living organisms, from plants and invertebrates to humans. Therefore, these shared features can allow the comparative study of potentially dangerous substances, such as engineered nanoparticles (NPs). However, differences of methodology and procedure between diverse species and models make comparison of innate immune responses to NPs between organisms difficult in many cases. To this aim, this review provides an overview of suitable methods and assays that can be used to measure NP immune interactions across species in a multidisciplinary approach. The first part of this review describes the main innate immune defense characteristics of the selected models that can be associated to NPs exposure. In the second part, the different modes of exposure to NPs across models (considering isolated cells or whole organisms) and the main endpoints measured are discussed. In this synergistic perspective, we provide an overview of the current state of important cross-disciplinary immunological models to study NP-immune interactions and identify future research needs. As such, this paper could be used as a methodological reference point for future nano-immunosafety studies.Entities:
Keywords: NPs testing; environmental models; human cells; innate immunity; markers
Year: 2021 PMID: 34207693 PMCID: PMC8230276 DOI: 10.3390/nano11061528
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1The different exposure pathways of engineered NPs that can interact with human or environmental species.
Figure 2The different models discussed in the current review, and their main experimental usage in the laboratory: in vivo (whole organism experiments) and in vitro (isolated cells or cell lines).
Summary of the main defense mechanisms involved in innate immunity at different levels of the models discussed.
| Name | Innate Immune Cell Types | Whole Organism Level Defense | Cellular Response | Humoral/Extracellular Factors | Recognition & Activation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant | All cells |
Cell wall | MAMP-triggered immunity | ROS production | PRRs: |
| Earthworm | Amoebocytes (granular and hyaline) Eleocytes | Skin | Phagocytosis | AMPs (lumbricin I) | PRRs: CCF (lectinlike domain) |
| Terrestrial isopod | Hemocyte | Cuticle | Phagocytosis | AMPs | PRRs: |
| Marine mussel | Hemocyte | Shell barrier | Phagocytosis | AMPs (mytilin, myticin, mytimicin), Defensins | PRRs: lectins |
| Sea urchin | Macrophage-like phagocytes, amoebocytes (colorless, red); vibratile cells | Test | Phagocytosis | ROS production, AMPs (strongylocins, centrocins, paracentrin 1), lysozyme | PRRs: |
| Human | Monocytes | Epithelial and mucosal tissue | Phagocytosis | Complement | PRRs:TLRs, NLRs, Scavenger Receptors, RLRs, CLRs, |
1 Other innate cell types exist that are not discussed, including natural killer cells and innate lymphoid cells. Refer to the main text for the meaning of the abbreviations.
Figure 3The different characteristics of NPs and parameters to investigate when they are in suspension media for laboratory experiments.
Figure 4The different in vitro approaches and NPs exposure parameters encountered across the selected models.
Figure 5The different in vitro NP exposure possibilities available for human primary cells and the procedure of cell extraction and preparation (Reprinted with permission from Michelini et al. (2021) [153]. Copyright 2021, Copyright Royal Society of Chemistry).
Figure 6NP exposure approaches using the whole organism with the different exposure pathways across the selected models.
Figure 7Summary of the different endpoints measured in immune cells after exposure to NPs.
Overview of studies demonstrating the use of cellular and humoral parameters to characterize the immune responses of organisms.
| Plants | Earthworms | Isopods | Mussels | Sea | Human | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LDH or ATP release | [ | [ | [ | |||
| Fluorescent probes (FDA or PI) | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | |
| Metabolic activity (MTT or CTB) | [ | [ | [ | [ | ||
| Blue tryptan | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ |
| (Pre)-apoptosis (Annexin-V, DAPI, PI) | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ |
| Cell subpopulation or polarization | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TEM/SEM | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Neural red uptake/ release | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | |
| Lysosome acidification | [ | [ | [ | |||
| Other organelles integrity (Trans-Golgi apparatus, Mitochondria) | [ | [ | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Phagocytic activity (index, rate) | [ | [ | [ | [ | ||
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ROS production | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | |
| Lipid peroxidase activity | [ | [ | [ | [ | ||
| RNS (including NO) production | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lysozyme | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | |
| Other species specific enzymes | lysenin [ | |||||
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| IL, TNF, IF secretion | [ | [ | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Phenoloxidase activation | [ | [ | [ | [ | ||
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Antioxidant defense and detoxification genes (e.g., CAT, SOD) | [ | [ | [ | [ | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Signal transduction protein, enzymes, AMPs (general and species-specific) | Lysenin/Fetidin [ | mytilin, myticin, EPp | [ | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TLR | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | |
| LBP/BPI (LPS-binding protein/bacterial permeability-increasing protein) | [ | [ | [ | |||
Figure 8Proposal template for translatable NP experiments across the models of interest (plants, terrestrial and marine invertebrates, and human cells).