4.6 Article

In vivo nanotoxicity testing using the zebrafish embryo assay

Journal

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY B
Volume 1, Issue 32, Pages 3918-3925

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3tb20528b

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. DAAD [290084/2011-3]
  2. ERC [StG-309495-NeoNano]
  3. European Union [NMP4-LA-2013-310451, COST-TD1004]
  4. German Federal State of North Rhine Westfalia (High-Tech.NRW/EU-Ziel2-Programm (EFRE)
  5. DFG [LA 2937/1-1, 1035, PAK 56]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nanoparticles are increasingly used for biomedical purposes. Many different diagnostic and therapeutic applications are envisioned for nanoparticles, but there are often also serious concerns regarding their safety. Given the fact that numerous new nanomaterials are being developed every day, and that not much is known about the long-term toxicological impact of exposure to nanoparticles, there is an urgent need to establish efficient methods for nanotoxicity testing. The zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryo assay has recently emerged as an interesting 'intermediate' method for in vivo nanotoxicity screening, enabling (semi-) high-throughput analyses in a system significantly more complex than cultured cells, but at the same time also less 'invasive' and less expensive than large-scale biocompatibility studies in mice or rats. The zebrafish embryo assay is relatively well-established in the environmental sciences, but has not yet gained wide notice in the nanomedicine field. Using prototypic polymeric drug carriers, gold-based nanodiagnostics and nanotherapeutics, and iron oxide-based nanodiagnostics, we here show that toxicity testing using zebrafish embryos is easy, efficient and informative, and faithfully reflects, yet significantly extends, cell-based toxicity testing. We therefore expect that the zebrafish embryo assay will become a popular future tool for in vivo nanotoxicity screening.

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