4.5 Article

Size-dependent cytotoxicity of amorphous silica nanoparticles in human hepatoma HepG2 cells

Journal

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
Volume 25, Issue 7, Pages 1343-1352

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2011.05.003

Keywords

Silica nanoparticle; Human hepatoma cell (HepG2); Reactive oxygen species (ROS); DNA damage; Cell cycle; Apoptosis

Categories

Funding

  1. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20090061110062]
  2. Jilin University Research Foundation for Basic Science [200903112]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study is to compare the potential cytotoxicity induced by amorphous silica particles with different sizes. The effects of one fine particle (498 nm) and three nanoparticles (68, 43, and 19 nm) on cultured human hepatoma (HepG2) cells were investigated by detecting morphological changes, cell viability, cytomembrane integrity, DNA damage, cell cycle distribution, and apoptosis after the cells were treated with 100 mu g/mL of four silica particles for 24 h. The results indicated that in HepG2 cells, the cytotoxicity generated by silica particles strongly depended on the particle size, and smaller silica particle possessed higher toxic effect. In order to further elucidate the possible mechanisms of cell injuries, intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) was measured. Increased ROS level was also observed in a size dependent way. However, the result showed the fine particle did not promote intracellular ROS level significantly, while cell injuries were detected in this treated group. Thus, our data demonstrated that exposure to different sizes of silica particles resulted in a size dependent cytotoxicity in cultured HepG2 cells, and ROS generation should be one possible damage pathway but might not be completely responsible for the toxic effect produced by silica particles. (C) 2011 Elsevier 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available