4.7 Article

A study of the mechanism of in vitro cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles using catfish primary hepatocytes and human HepG2 cells

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 409, Issue 22, Pages 4753-4762

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.07.039

Keywords

Cytotoxicity; Nanoparticle; Metal oxide; Catfish; Primary hepatocyte; HepG2 cell

Funding

  1. NSF-CREST (National Science Foundation-Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology) [HRD-0833178]
  2. NIH RCMI [G12RR013459-13]
  3. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  4. Division Of Human Resource Development [833178] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nanoparticles (NPs), including nanometal oxides, are being used in diverse applications such as medicine, clothing, cosmetics and food. In order to promote the safe development of nanotechnology, it is essential to assess the potential adverse health consequences associated with human exposure. The liver is a target site for NP toxicity, due to NP accumulation within it after ingestion, inhalation or absorption. The toxicity of nano-ZnO, TiO2, CuO and Co3O4 was investigated using a primary culture of channel catfish hepatocytes and human HepG2 cells as in vitro model systems for assessing the impact of metal oxide NPs on human and environmental health. Some mechanisms of nanotoxicity were determined by using phase contrast inverted microscopy, 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assays, reactive oxygen species (ROS) assays, and flow cytometric assays. Nano-CuO and ZnO showed significant toxicity in both HepG2 cells and catfish primary hepatocytes. The results demonstrate that HepG2 cells are more sensitive than catfish primary hepatocytes to the toxicity of metal oxide NPs. The overall ranking of the toxicity of metal oxides to the test cells is as follows: TiO2

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