4.7 Article

Inverse relationship between elemental selenium nanoparticle size and inhibition of cancer cell growth in vitro and in vivo

Journal

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
Volume 85, Issue -, Pages 71-77

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2015.08.006

Keywords

Selenium; Nanoparticles; Size; Cytotoxicity; Reactive oxygen species

Funding

  1. Specialized Research Fund for Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20123418110003]
  2. Funds of Anhui Provincial Science and Technology Department [1306c083018, 1408085MKL39, 1406C085017]
  3. Anhui Major Demonstration Project for Leading Talent Team on Tea Chemistry and Health
  4. Tea Project of Anhui Provincial Agriculture Committee
  5. Collaborative Innovation Center of Agri-forestry Industry in Dabieshan Area, Anhui Agricultural University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Elemental selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs) have been demonstrated to be equivalent to selenomethionine and methylselenocysteine in upregulating selenoenzymes; however, the toxicity of SeNPs is markedly lower than these two organic selenium compounds. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of SeNP size on cancer cell growth and ascertain whether production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) is implicated as a candidate mechanism of action. Two types of SeNPs (averaging 35 nm and 91 nm) were investigated. Cell accumulation was inhibited in vitro and in vivo in a manner inversely proportional to particle size. In vitro modeling experiments showed the reduction of SeNPs to be glutathione concentration dependent and to result in ROS formation. Both SeNP biotransformation and ROS production were size dependent, with the smaller SeNPs being more active, thereby suggesting that small-sized SeNPs are more effective in inhibiting cancer cell proliferation through an ROS mediated mechanism. (C) 2015 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available