4.7 Article

Engineered nanornaterials cause cytotoxicity and activation on mouse antigen presenting cells

Journal

TOXICOLOGY
Volume 267, Issue 1-3, Pages 125-131

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tox.2009.10.034

Keywords

Nanomaterials; Macrophages; Dendritic cells; Immune response

Funding

  1. EU
  2. NANOSH
  3. Academy of Finland
  4. [NMP2-CT-2006-032777]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nanomaterials improve everyday products but their safety for human health is poorly known. In this study we explored immunological effects of five different nanomaterials on antigen presenting cells (APC) in vitro. Nanomaterials studied were rutile titanium dioxide (TiO2), amorphous silica-coated rutile titanium dioxide (TiO2-silica), zinc oxide (ZnO), single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT). APCs included mouse macrophages (RAW 264.7 cell line) and murine bone marrow-derived dendritic cells (bmDC). All studied particles were cytotoxic to bmDCs, and ZnC, TiO2 and TiO2-silica-induced dose-dependently cell death also in macrophages. ZnO had the most drastic immunological effects leading to high expression of proinflammatory cytokine. IL-1 beta, and enhanced production of neutrophil chemoattractant CXCL-9 on both cell types. TiO2 and TiO2-silica stimulated the expression of IL-6, MIP-1 alpha and TNF-alpha in macrophages, and increased their maturation, antigen presentation and co-stimulation activity. In contrast, SWCNT or MWCNT did not seem to have any significant immunological effects on the cell types studied suggesting that APCs might not be the target cells for carbon nanotubes. Due to diverse effects on different nanomaterials on immune cells we suggest that each new nanomaterial should be extensively studied in vitro and in vivo for risk assessment before their use in final products. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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