4.5 Article

Toxicological assessment of multi-walled carbon nanotubes on A549 human lung epithelial cells

期刊

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 352-362

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2014.12.004

关键词

Pristine multi-walled carbon nanotubes (pMWCNT); Acid-treated multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT-COOH) Oxidative damage; Genotoxicity; Lysosomal and mitochondrial dysfunction

资金

  1. Department of Hygiene, University of Messina, (Fondi di Dipartimento)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An in vitro model resembling the respiratory epithelium was used to investigate the biological response to laboratory-made pristine and functionalised multi-walled carbon nanotubes (pMWCNT and MWCNT-COOH). Cell uptake was analysed by MWCNT-COOH, FITC labelled and the effect of internalisation was evaluated on the endocytic apparatus, mitochondrial compartment and DNA integrity. In the dose range 12.5-100 mu g ml(-1), cytotoxicity and ROS generation were assayed, evaluating the role of iron (the catalyst used in MWCNTs synthesis). We observed a correlation between MWCNTs uptake and lysosomal dysfunction and an inverse relationship between these two parameters and cell viability (P < 0.01). In particular, pristine-MWCNT caused a time- and dose-dependent ROS increase and higher levels of lipid hydroperoxides compared to the controls. Mitochondrial impairment was observed. Conversely to the functionalised MWCNT, higher micronuclei (MNi) frequency was detected in mono- and binucleate pMWCNT-treated cells, underlining an aneugenic effect due to mechanical damage. Based on the physical and chemical features of MWCNTs, several toxicological pathways could be activated in respiratory epithelium upon their inhalation. The biological impacts of nano-needles were imputable to their efficient and very fast uptake and to the resulting mechanical damages in cell compartments. Lysosomal dysfunction was able to trigger further toxic effects. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据