Cargando…

Quantifying engineered nanomaterial toxicity: comparison of common cytotoxicity and gene expression measurements

BACKGROUND: When evaluating the toxicity of engineered nanomaterials (ENMS) it is important to use multiple bioassays based on different mechanisms of action. In this regard we evaluated the use of gene expression and common cytotoxicity measurements using as test materials, two selected nanoparticl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Atha, Donald H., Nagy, Amber, Steinbrück, Andrea, Dennis, Allison M., Hollingsworth, Jennifer A., Dua, Varsha, Iyer, Rashi, Nelson, Bryant C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5679359/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29121949
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12951-017-0312-3
_version_ 1783277573378146304
author Atha, Donald H.
Nagy, Amber
Steinbrück, Andrea
Dennis, Allison M.
Hollingsworth, Jennifer A.
Dua, Varsha
Iyer, Rashi
Nelson, Bryant C.
author_facet Atha, Donald H.
Nagy, Amber
Steinbrück, Andrea
Dennis, Allison M.
Hollingsworth, Jennifer A.
Dua, Varsha
Iyer, Rashi
Nelson, Bryant C.
author_sort Atha, Donald H.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: When evaluating the toxicity of engineered nanomaterials (ENMS) it is important to use multiple bioassays based on different mechanisms of action. In this regard we evaluated the use of gene expression and common cytotoxicity measurements using as test materials, two selected nanoparticles with known differences in toxicity, 5 nm mercaptoundecanoic acid (MUA)-capped InP and CdSe quantum dots (QDs). We tested the effects of these QDs at concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 160 µg/mL on cultured normal human bronchial epithelial (NHBE) cells using four common cytotoxicity assays: the dichlorofluorescein assay for reactive oxygen species (ROS), the lactate dehydrogenase assay for membrane viability (LDH), the mitochondrial dehydrogenase assay for mitochondrial function, and the Comet assay for DNA strand breaks. RESULTS: The cytotoxicity assays showed similar trends when exposed to nanoparticles for 24 h at 80 µg/mL with a threefold increase in ROS with exposure to CdSe QDs compared to an insignificant change in ROS levels after exposure to InP QDs, a twofold increase in the LDH necrosis assay in NHBE cells with exposure to CdSe QDs compared to a 50% decrease for InP QDs, a 60% decrease in the mitochondrial function assay upon exposure to CdSe QDs compared to a minimal increase in the case of InP and significant DNA strand breaks after exposure to CdSe QDs compared to no significant DNA strand breaks with InP. High-throughput quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) data for cells exposed for 6 h at a concentration of 80 µg/mL were consistent with the cytotoxicity assays showing major differences in DNA damage, DNA repair and mitochondrial function gene regulatory responses to the CdSe and InP QDs. The BRCA2, CYP1A1, CYP1B1, CDK1, SFN and VEGFA genes were observed to be upregulated specifically from increased CdSe exposure and suggests their possible utility as biomarkers for toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This study can serve as a model for comparing traditional cytotoxicity assays and gene expression measurements and to determine candidate biomarkers for assessing the biocompatibility of ENMs. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12951-017-0312-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5679359
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56793592017-11-17 Quantifying engineered nanomaterial toxicity: comparison of common cytotoxicity and gene expression measurements Atha, Donald H. Nagy, Amber Steinbrück, Andrea Dennis, Allison M. Hollingsworth, Jennifer A. Dua, Varsha Iyer, Rashi Nelson, Bryant C. J Nanobiotechnology Research BACKGROUND: When evaluating the toxicity of engineered nanomaterials (ENMS) it is important to use multiple bioassays based on different mechanisms of action. In this regard we evaluated the use of gene expression and common cytotoxicity measurements using as test materials, two selected nanoparticles with known differences in toxicity, 5 nm mercaptoundecanoic acid (MUA)-capped InP and CdSe quantum dots (QDs). We tested the effects of these QDs at concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 160 µg/mL on cultured normal human bronchial epithelial (NHBE) cells using four common cytotoxicity assays: the dichlorofluorescein assay for reactive oxygen species (ROS), the lactate dehydrogenase assay for membrane viability (LDH), the mitochondrial dehydrogenase assay for mitochondrial function, and the Comet assay for DNA strand breaks. RESULTS: The cytotoxicity assays showed similar trends when exposed to nanoparticles for 24 h at 80 µg/mL with a threefold increase in ROS with exposure to CdSe QDs compared to an insignificant change in ROS levels after exposure to InP QDs, a twofold increase in the LDH necrosis assay in NHBE cells with exposure to CdSe QDs compared to a 50% decrease for InP QDs, a 60% decrease in the mitochondrial function assay upon exposure to CdSe QDs compared to a minimal increase in the case of InP and significant DNA strand breaks after exposure to CdSe QDs compared to no significant DNA strand breaks with InP. High-throughput quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) data for cells exposed for 6 h at a concentration of 80 µg/mL were consistent with the cytotoxicity assays showing major differences in DNA damage, DNA repair and mitochondrial function gene regulatory responses to the CdSe and InP QDs. The BRCA2, CYP1A1, CYP1B1, CDK1, SFN and VEGFA genes were observed to be upregulated specifically from increased CdSe exposure and suggests their possible utility as biomarkers for toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This study can serve as a model for comparing traditional cytotoxicity assays and gene expression measurements and to determine candidate biomarkers for assessing the biocompatibility of ENMs. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12951-017-0312-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5679359/ /pubmed/29121949 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12951-017-0312-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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
Atha, Donald H.
Nagy, Amber
Steinbrück, Andrea
Dennis, Allison M.
Hollingsworth, Jennifer A.
Dua, Varsha
Iyer, Rashi
Nelson, Bryant C.
Quantifying engineered nanomaterial toxicity: comparison of common cytotoxicity and gene expression measurements
title Quantifying engineered nanomaterial toxicity: comparison of common cytotoxicity and gene expression measurements
title_full Quantifying engineered nanomaterial toxicity: comparison of common cytotoxicity and gene expression measurements
title_fullStr Quantifying engineered nanomaterial toxicity: comparison of common cytotoxicity and gene expression measurements
title_full_unstemmed Quantifying engineered nanomaterial toxicity: comparison of common cytotoxicity and gene expression measurements
title_short Quantifying engineered nanomaterial toxicity: comparison of common cytotoxicity and gene expression measurements
title_sort quantifying engineered nanomaterial toxicity: comparison of common cytotoxicity and gene expression measurements
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5679359/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29121949
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12951-017-0312-3
work_keys_str_mv AT athadonaldh quantifyingengineerednanomaterialtoxicitycomparisonofcommoncytotoxicityandgeneexpressionmeasurements
AT nagyamber quantifyingengineerednanomaterialtoxicitycomparisonofcommoncytotoxicityandgeneexpressionmeasurements
AT steinbruckandrea quantifyingengineerednanomaterialtoxicitycomparisonofcommoncytotoxicityandgeneexpressionmeasurements
AT dennisallisonm quantifyingengineerednanomaterialtoxicitycomparisonofcommoncytotoxicityandgeneexpressionmeasurements
AT hollingsworthjennifera quantifyingengineerednanomaterialtoxicitycomparisonofcommoncytotoxicityandgeneexpressionmeasurements
AT duavarsha quantifyingengineerednanomaterialtoxicitycomparisonofcommoncytotoxicityandgeneexpressionmeasurements
AT iyerrashi quantifyingengineerednanomaterialtoxicitycomparisonofcommoncytotoxicityandgeneexpressionmeasurements
AT nelsonbryantc quantifyingengineerednanomaterialtoxicitycomparisonofcommoncytotoxicityandgeneexpressionmeasurements