Cargando…

Comparative lung toxicity of engineered nanomaterials utilizing in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo approaches

BACKGROUND: Although engineered nanomaterials (ENM) are currently regulated either in the context of a new chemical, or as a new use of an existing chemical, hazard assessment is still to a large extent reliant on information from historical toxicity studies of the parent compound, and may not take...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Yong Ho, Boykin, Elizabeth, Stevens, Tina, Lavrich, Katelyn, Gilmour, M Ian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262188/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25424549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12951-014-0047-3
_version_ 1782348391881113600
author Kim, Yong Ho
Boykin, Elizabeth
Stevens, Tina
Lavrich, Katelyn
Gilmour, M Ian
author_facet Kim, Yong Ho
Boykin, Elizabeth
Stevens, Tina
Lavrich, Katelyn
Gilmour, M Ian
author_sort Kim, Yong Ho
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although engineered nanomaterials (ENM) are currently regulated either in the context of a new chemical, or as a new use of an existing chemical, hazard assessment is still to a large extent reliant on information from historical toxicity studies of the parent compound, and may not take into account special properties related to the small size and high surface area of ENM. While it is important to properly screen and predict the potential toxicity of ENM, there is also concern that current toxicity tests will require even heavier use of experimental animals, and reliable alternatives should be developed and validated. Here we assessed the comparative respiratory toxicity of ENM in three different methods which employed in vivo, in vitro and ex vivo toxicity testing approaches. METHODS: Toxicity of five ENM (SiO(2) (10), CeO(2) (23), CeO(2) (88), TiO(2) (10), and TiO(2) (200); parentheses indicate average ENM diameter in nm) were tested in this study. CD-1 mice were exposed to the ENM by oropharyngeal aspiration at a dose of 100 μg. Mouse lung tissue slices and alveolar macrophages were also exposed to the ENM at concentrations of 22–132 and 3.1-100 μg/mL, respectively. Biomarkers of lung injury and inflammation were assessed at 4 and/or 24 hr post-exposure. RESULTS: Small-sized ENM (SiO(2) (10), CeO(2) (23), but not TiO(2) (10)) significantly elicited pro-inflammatory responses in mice (in vivo), suggesting that the observed toxicity in the lungs was dependent on size and chemical composition. Similarly, SiO(2) (10) and/or CeO(2) (23) were also more toxic in the lung tissue slices (ex vivo) and alveolar macrophages (in vitro) compared to other ENM. A similar pattern of inflammatory response (e.g., interleukin-6) was observed in both ex vivo and in vitro when a dose metric based on cell surface area (μg/cm(2)), but not culture medium volume (μg/mL) was employed. CONCLUSION: Exposure to ENM induced acute lung inflammatory effects in a size- and chemical composition-dependent manner. The cell culture and lung slice techniques provided similar profiles of effect and help bridge the gap in our understanding of in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro toxicity outcomes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12951-014-0047-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4262188
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42621882014-12-11 Comparative lung toxicity of engineered nanomaterials utilizing in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo approaches Kim, Yong Ho Boykin, Elizabeth Stevens, Tina Lavrich, Katelyn Gilmour, M Ian J Nanobiotechnology Research BACKGROUND: Although engineered nanomaterials (ENM) are currently regulated either in the context of a new chemical, or as a new use of an existing chemical, hazard assessment is still to a large extent reliant on information from historical toxicity studies of the parent compound, and may not take into account special properties related to the small size and high surface area of ENM. While it is important to properly screen and predict the potential toxicity of ENM, there is also concern that current toxicity tests will require even heavier use of experimental animals, and reliable alternatives should be developed and validated. Here we assessed the comparative respiratory toxicity of ENM in three different methods which employed in vivo, in vitro and ex vivo toxicity testing approaches. METHODS: Toxicity of five ENM (SiO(2) (10), CeO(2) (23), CeO(2) (88), TiO(2) (10), and TiO(2) (200); parentheses indicate average ENM diameter in nm) were tested in this study. CD-1 mice were exposed to the ENM by oropharyngeal aspiration at a dose of 100 μg. Mouse lung tissue slices and alveolar macrophages were also exposed to the ENM at concentrations of 22–132 and 3.1-100 μg/mL, respectively. Biomarkers of lung injury and inflammation were assessed at 4 and/or 24 hr post-exposure. RESULTS: Small-sized ENM (SiO(2) (10), CeO(2) (23), but not TiO(2) (10)) significantly elicited pro-inflammatory responses in mice (in vivo), suggesting that the observed toxicity in the lungs was dependent on size and chemical composition. Similarly, SiO(2) (10) and/or CeO(2) (23) were also more toxic in the lung tissue slices (ex vivo) and alveolar macrophages (in vitro) compared to other ENM. A similar pattern of inflammatory response (e.g., interleukin-6) was observed in both ex vivo and in vitro when a dose metric based on cell surface area (μg/cm(2)), but not culture medium volume (μg/mL) was employed. CONCLUSION: Exposure to ENM induced acute lung inflammatory effects in a size- and chemical composition-dependent manner. The cell culture and lung slice techniques provided similar profiles of effect and help bridge the gap in our understanding of in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro toxicity outcomes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12951-014-0047-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4262188/ /pubmed/25424549 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12951-014-0047-3 Text en © Kim et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Kim, Yong Ho
Boykin, Elizabeth
Stevens, Tina
Lavrich, Katelyn
Gilmour, M Ian
Comparative lung toxicity of engineered nanomaterials utilizing in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo approaches
title Comparative lung toxicity of engineered nanomaterials utilizing in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo approaches
title_full Comparative lung toxicity of engineered nanomaterials utilizing in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo approaches
title_fullStr Comparative lung toxicity of engineered nanomaterials utilizing in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo approaches
title_full_unstemmed Comparative lung toxicity of engineered nanomaterials utilizing in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo approaches
title_short Comparative lung toxicity of engineered nanomaterials utilizing in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo approaches
title_sort comparative lung toxicity of engineered nanomaterials utilizing in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo approaches
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262188/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25424549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12951-014-0047-3
work_keys_str_mv AT kimyongho comparativelungtoxicityofengineerednanomaterialsutilizinginvitroexvivoandinvivoapproaches
AT boykinelizabeth comparativelungtoxicityofengineerednanomaterialsutilizinginvitroexvivoandinvivoapproaches
AT stevenstina comparativelungtoxicityofengineerednanomaterialsutilizinginvitroexvivoandinvivoapproaches
AT lavrichkatelyn comparativelungtoxicityofengineerednanomaterialsutilizinginvitroexvivoandinvivoapproaches
AT gilmourmian comparativelungtoxicityofengineerednanomaterialsutilizinginvitroexvivoandinvivoapproaches