4.6 Review

Biopersistent fiber-induced inflammation and carcinogenesis: Lessons learned from asbestos toward safety of fibrous nanomaterials

Journal

ARCHIVES OF BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOPHYSICS
Volume 502, Issue 1, Pages 1-7

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.abb.2010.06.015

Keywords

Asbestos; Carbon nanotuhe; Mesothehoma; Inflammation; Macrophage

Funding

  1. MEXT
  2. Takeda Science Foundation
  3. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan
  4. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nano-sized durable fibrous materials such as carbon nanotubes have raised safety concerns similar to those raised by asbestos However, the mechanism by which particulates with ultrafine structure cause inflammation and ultimately cancer (e.g malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer) is largely unknown. This is partially because the particulates are not uniform and they vary in a plethora of factors Such variances include length, diameter, surface area, density, shape, contaminant metals (including iron) and crystallinity Each of these factors is involved in particulate toxicity both in vitro and in vivo Thus, the elicited biological responses are incredibly complicated Various kinds of fibeis were evaluated with different cells, animals and methods The aim of this review is to concisely summarize previous reports from the standpoint that activation of macrophages and mesothelial injury are the two major mechanisms of inflammation and possibly cancer Importantly, these two mechanisms appear to be interacting with each other However, there is a lack of data on the interplay of macrophage and mesothelium especially in vivo. Since fibrous nanomaterials present potential applications in various fields, it is necessary to develop standard evaluation methods to minimize risks for human health. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available