4.5 Article

Genotoxicity evaluation of titanium dioxide nanoparticles using the Ames test and Comet assay

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED TOXICOLOGY
卷 32, 期 11, 页码 934-943

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jat.2781

关键词

titanium dioxide nanoparticles; Ames test; Comet assay; mutations; genotoxicity

资金

  1. Collaborative Opportunities for Research Excellence in Science (CORES) program from the U.S. FDA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2-NPs) are being used increasingly for various industrial and consumer products, including cosmetics and sunscreens because of their photoactive properties. Therefore, the toxicity of TiO2-NPs needs to be thoroughly understood. In the present study, the genotoxicity of 10nm uncoated sphere TiO2-NPs with an anatase crystalline structure, which has been well characterized in a previous study, was assessed using the Salmonella reverse mutation assay (Ames test) and the single-cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) assay. For the Ames test, Salmonella strains TA102, TA100, TA1537, TA98 and TA1535 were preincubated with eight different concentrations of the TiO2-NPs for 4?h at 37?degrees C, ranging from 0 to 4915.2?mu g per plate. No mutation induction was found. Analyses with transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) showed that the TiO2-NPs were not able to enter the bacterial cell. For the Comet assay, TK6 cells were treated with 0200?mu g ml1 TiO2-NPs for 24?h at 37?degrees C to detect DNA damage. Although the TK6 cells did take up TiO2-NPs, no significant induction of DNA breakage or oxidative DNA damage was observed in the treated cells using the standard alkaline Comet assay and the endonuclease III (EndoIII) and human 8-hydroxyguanine DNA-glycosylase (hOGG1)-modified Comet assay, respectively. These results suggest that TiO2-NPs are not genotoxic under the conditions of the Ames test and Comet assay. Published 2012. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据