4.6 Article

Use of whole genome expression analysis in the toxicity screening of nanoparticles

期刊

TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY
卷 280, 期 2, 页码 272-284

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2014.07.017

关键词

Nanotoxicology; Whole genome expression analysis; Cytotoxicity; Oxidative stress; Interleukin secretion; Apoptosis

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund [N214-NAN, P 22576-B18]
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 22576] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of nanoparticles (NPs) offers exciting new options in technical and medical applications provided they do not cause adverse cellular effects. Cellular effects of NPs depend on particle parameters and exposure conditions. In this study, whole genome expression arrays were employed to identify the influence of particle size, cytotoxicity, protein coating, and surface functionalization of polystyrene particles as model particles and for short carbon nanotubes (CNTs) as particles with potential interest in medical treatment. Another aim of the study was to find out whether screening by microarray would identify other or additional targets than commonly used cell-based assays for NP action. Whole genome expression analysis and assays for cell viability, interleukin secretion, oxidative stress, and apoptosis were employed. Similar to conventional assays, microarray data identified inflammation, oxidative stress, and apoptosis as affected by NP treatment. Application of lower particle doses and presence of protein decreased the total number of regulated genes but did not markedly influence the top regulated genes. Cellular effects of CNTs were small; only carboxyl-functionalized single-walled CNTs caused appreciable regulation of genes. It can be concluded that regulated functions correlated well with results in cell-based assays. Presence of protein mitigated cytotoxicity but did not cause a different pattern of regulated processes. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.6
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