4.6 Article

Evaluation of cytotoxicity and radiation enhancement using 1.9 nm gold particles: potential application for cancer therapy

Journal

NANOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 29, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0957-4484/21/29/295101

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK [CRUK] [C1278/A990, C1513/A7047]
  2. Medical Research Council [G0502183] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [G0502183] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High atomic number (Z) materials such as gold preferentially absorb kilovoltage x-rays compared to soft tissue and may be used to achieve local dose enhancement in tumours during treatment with ionizing radiation. Gold nanoparticles have been demonstrated as radiation dose enhancing agents in vivo and in vitro. In the present study, we used multiple endpoints to characterize the cellular cytotoxic response of a range of cell lines to 1.9 nm gold particles and measured dose modifying effects following transient exposure at low concentrations. Gold nanoparticles caused significant levels of cell type specific cytotoxicity, apoptosis and increased oxidative stress. When used as dose modifying agents, dose enhancement factors varied between the cell lines investigated with the highest enhancement being 1.9 in AGO-1522B cells at a nanoparticle concentration of 100 mu g ml(-1). This study shows exposure to 1.9 nm gold particles to induce a range of cell line specific responses including decreased clonogenic survival, increased apoptosis and induction of DNA damage which may be mediated through the production of reactive oxygen species. This is the first study involving 1.9 nm nanometre sized particles to report multiple cellular responses which impact on the radiation dose modifying effect. The findings highlight the need for extensive characterization of responses to gold nanoparticles when assessing dose enhancing potential in cancer therapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available