4.8 Article

Biosafety assessment of Gd@C-82(OH)(22) nanoparticles on Caenorhabditis elegans

Journal

NANOSCALE
Volume 3, Issue 6, Pages 2636-2641

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c1nr10239g

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 program) [2011CB9334000, 2010CB933600]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program (863 program) [2009AA03Z335]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [10979011, 30900278]
  4. CAS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gd@C-82(OH)(22), a water-soluble endohedral metallofullerene derivative, has been proven to possess significant antineoplastic activity in mice. Toxicity studies of the nanoparticle have shown some evidence of low or non toxicity in mice and cell models. Here we employed Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) as a model organism to further evaluate the short-and long-term toxicity of Gd@C-82(OH)(22) and possible behavior changes under normal and stress culture conditions. With treatment of Gd@C-82(OH)(22) at 0.01, 0.1, 1.0 and 10 mg ml(-1) within one generation (short-term), C. elegans showed no significant decrease in longevity or thermotolerance compared to the controls. Furthermore, when Gd@C-82(OH)(22) treatment was extended up to six generations (long-term), nontoxic effects to the nematodes were found. In addition, data from body length measurement, feeding rate and egg-laying assays with short-term treatment demonstrated that the nanoparticles have no significant impact on the individual growth, feeding behavior and reproductive ability, respectively. In summary, this work has shown that Gd@C-82(OH)(22) is tolerated well by worms and it has no apparent toxic effects on longevity, stress resistance, growth and behaviors that were observed in both adult and young worms. Our work lays the foundations for further developments of this anti-neoplastic agent for clinical applications.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available