4.7 Article

In vitro biocompatibility of solid lipid nanoparticles

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 432, Issue -, Pages 382-388

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.018

Keywords

SLN; Cytotoxicity; Vero cells; MOCK cells

Funding

  1. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico)
  2. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior)
  3. FAPESC (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa de Santa Catarina)
  4. REUNI/MEC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was undertaken to address the current deficient knowledge of cellular response to solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) exposure. We investigated the cytotoxicity of several SLNs formulations in two fibroblast cell lineages, Vero and MDCK. Several methods were used to explore the mechanisms involved in this cytotoxic process, including cell viability assays, flow cytometry and ROS generation assessment. Among nanoparticles tested, two of them (F4 and F5) demonstrated more cytotoxic effects in both cell lineages. The cell viability assays suggested that F4 and F5 interfere in cell mitochondrial metabolism and in lysosomal activity. In addition, F5 decreased the percentage of MOCK cells in G0/G1 and G2/M phases, with a marked increase in the Sub/G1 population, suggesting DNA fragmentation. Regarding F4, although IC50 was higher (similar to 700 mu g/mL), this formulation affected mitochondrial membrane potential for Vero cells. However, the IC50 of F5 was around 250 mu g/mL, suggesting the effect of SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate) present in the formulation. In summary, the nanoparticles tested here appears to be biocompatible, with the exception of F5. Further studies are required to elucidate the in vivo effects of these nanoscale structures, in order to evaluate or predict the connotation of their increased and widespread use. (C) 2012 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