4.5 Article

Analysis of metal ion-induced DNA damage, apoptosis, and necrosis in human (Jurkat) T-cells demonstrates Ni2+, and V3+ are more toxic than other metals:: Al3+, Be2+, Co2+, Cr3+, Cu2+, Fe3+, Mo5+, Nb5+, Zr2+

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 86A, Issue 4, Pages 905-913

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.31789

Keywords

T cells; metal implant debris; metal ions; DNA damage; toxicity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It remains unclear how metal released front implants affects cells of the immune system and, in particular, cells of the adaptive immune system, that is, T-helper lymphocyte. In this study, we investigated the effects of aluminum, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, molybdenum, nickel, niobium, vanadium, and zirconium ions at concentrations front 0.05 to 5.0 mM on human CD4+ T lymphocytes. The DNA damage, apoptosis, necrosis, and proliferation responses of a human T-helper lymphocyte (Jurkat) cell line were evaluated to test our hypothesis that some metals will preferentially induce genotoxicity (DNA damage). Our results demonstrated that metal ions did not preferentially induce Jurkat T-lymphocyte DNA damage prior to other forms of toxicity, that is, apoptosis and/or direct necrosis. Nickel and vanadium induced the most DNA damage and were the most apoptotic metals tested, inducing >50%, caspase-9 positive T cells at 0.05 mM and 0.1 mM concentrations, respectively. Cobalt and niobium were the most toxic metals, inducing <50%, viability at similar to 0.5 mM concentrations. Nickel and vanadium were the only metals to induce DNA damage at nearly the same concentrations that induced >50 % apoptosis (i.e., <0.05 mM).,all the metals tested induced T-cell apoptosis at a lower dose than that required to affect DNA damage or toxicity, implying that soluble metals released front implants may not be preferentially genotoxic to lymphocytes. (C) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available