4.7 Article

Differential cytotoxic effects of gold nanoparticles in different mammalian cell lines

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 264, Issue -, Pages 303-312

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.11.031

Keywords

AuNPs; Cytotoxicity; Gold nanoparticles; In vitro assays; Cell-impedance measurement

Funding

  1. Environmental Analysis Lab, Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan, Taiwan [EPA-101-1605-02-01, EPA-102-1605-02-01]
  2. Ministry of Education, Taiwan, under the ATU plan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) possess unique properties that have been exploited in several medical applications. However, a more comprehensive understanding of the environmental safety of AuNPs is imperative for use of these nanomaterials. Here, we describe the impacts of AuNPs in various mammalian cell models using an automatic and dye-free method for continuous monitoring of cell growth based on the measurement of cell impedance. Several well-established cytotoxicity assays were also used for comparison. AuNPs induced a concentration-dependent decrease in cell growth. This inhibitory effect was associated with apoptosis induction in Vero cells but not in MRC-5 or NIH3T3 cells. Interestingly, cDNA microarray analyses in MRC-5 cells supported the involvement of DNA damage and repair responses, cell-cycle regulation, and oxidative stress in AuNP-induced cytotoxicity and genotoxicity. Moreover, autophagy appeared to play a role in AuNPs-induced attenuation of cell growth in NIH3T3 cells. In this study, we present a comprehensive overview of AuNP-induced cytotoxicity in a variety of mammalian cell lines, comparing several cytotoxicity assays. Collectively, these assays offer convincing evidence of the cytotoxicity of AuNPs and support the value of a systematic approach for analyzing the toxicology of nanoparticles. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available