4.7 Article

Silica-coated magnetic nanoparticles impair proteasome activity and increase the formation of cytoplasmic inclusion bodies in vitro

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep29095

关键词

-

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea - Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology [2015060192, 2016M3C7A1904392]
  2. Priority Research Centers Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2009-0093826]
  3. Graduate School, Ajou University
  4. NIH [AT006868, NS073994]
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016M3C7A1904392] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The potential toxicity of nanoparticles, particularly to neurons, is a major concern. In this study, we assessed the cytotoxicity of silica-coated magnetic nanoparticles containing rhodamine B isothiocyanate dye (MNPs@SiO2(RITC)) in HEK293 cells, SH-SY5Y cells, and rat primary cortical and dopaminergic neurons. In cells treated with 1.0 mu g/mu l MNPs@SiO2(RITC), the expression of several genes related to the proteasome pathway was altered, and proteasome activity was significantly reduced, compared with control and with 0.1 mu g/mu l MNPs@SiO2(RITC)-treated cells. Due to the reduction of proteasome activity, formation of cytoplasmic inclusions increased significantly in HEK293 cells over-expressing the a-synuclein interacting protein synphilin-1 as well as in primary cortical and dopaminergic neurons. Primary neurons, particularly dopaminergic neurons, were more vulnerable to MNPs@SiO2(RITC) than SH-SY5Y cells. Cellular polyamines, which are associated with protein aggregation, were significantly altered in SH-SY5Y cells treated with MNPs@SiO2(RITC). These findings highlight the mechanisms of neurotoxicity incurred by nanoparticles.

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

4.7
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