4.6 Article

Cationic nanoparticles induce caspase 3-, 7- and 9-mediated cytotoxicity in a human astrocytoma cell line

期刊

NANOTOXICOLOGY
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 557-567

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/17435390.2010.539713

关键词

Amine-modified nanoparticles; apoptosis; caspases 3/7 and 9 activation; 1321N1 human astrocytoma cells

资金

  1. Portuguese Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/15892/2005]
  2. Higher Education Authority Programme for Research at Third Level Institutes
  3. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [SFI/SRC/B1155]
  4. EPA [2008-EH-MS-h]
  5. SFI [09/IN.1/B2604)]
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/15892/2005] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

On a daily basis we are exposed to cationic nanoparticulates in many different ways. They are known to distribute to many organs of the body, and while some evidence suggests that these nanoparticles are toxic to cells, the mechanism of their toxicity is not clear. Here we apply a combination of biochemical and imaging techniques to study the mechanism by which amine-modified polystyrene nanoparticles induce cell death in a human brain astrocytoma cell line. Flow cytometry analysis of cells exposed to cationic nanoparticles revealed an increase in cell membrane permeability of the dyes YoPro-1 and propidium iodide, indicating onset of an apoptotic followed by a secondary necrotic response. Activation of caspases 3/7 and 9 and cleavage of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-1 was also detected, providing clear molecular evidence of the apoptotic pathway induced by the nanoparticles. Transmission electron microscopy also revealed that these nanoparticles induce morphological changes in lysosomes and mitochondria, consistent with our observation of a rapid increase in the formation of reactive oxygen species in these cells. Together these results suggest that amine-modified polystyrene nanoparticles can mediate cell death through an apoptotic mechanism mediated by damage to the mitochondria.

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

4.6
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