4.5 Article

Differences in cytotoxicity of lung epithelial cells exposed to titanium dioxide nanofibers and nanoparticles: Comparison of air-liquid interface and submerged cell cultures

Journal

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
Volume 65, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2020.104798

Keywords

Air liquid Interface system; TiO2 nanofibers; DNA damage; TiO2 nanoparticles; ROS production; Cytotoxicity

Categories

Funding

  1. Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigacion e Innovacion Tecnologica (PAPIIT) [IN224119]
  2. National Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT) [268769]
  3. CONACyT [576227, 582547]
  4. Programa de Apoyo a los Estudios de Posgrado (PAEP-UNAM)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Air Liquid Interface (ALI) system has emerged as a useful tool for toxicity evaluation of nanomaterials related to inhalation since the system mimics the aerosol exposure. We compared the biological responses of lung epithelial cells exposed to titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanofibers and nanoparticles in ALI and submerged cell cultures systems. Cells were exposed to 2 and 10 mu g/cm(2) for 24 h, 48 h and 72 h and LDH release, TiO2 internalization, DNA-double strand breaks (DSBs) and ROS production were assessed. LDH release was similar in both systems and particles had higher cytoplasmic uptake in submerged systems. Both TiO2 types were located in the cytoplasm but nanofibers had nuclear uptake regardless to the system tested. Cells exposed to TiO2 nanofibers had higher DSBs in the ALI system than in submerged cell cultures but cells exposed to TiO2 nanoparticles had similar DSBs in both systems. ROS production was higher in cells exposed to TiO2 nanofibers compared to cells exposed to TiO2 nanoparticles. In conclusion, cytotoxicity of lung epithelial cells was similar in ALI or submerged cell cultures, however cells exposed to TiO2 nanofibers displayed higher toxicity than cells exposed to TiO2 nanoparticles.

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