4.6 Article

Toxicity screenings of nanomaterials: challenges due to interference with assay processes and components of classic in vitro tests

期刊

NANOTOXICOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 13-24

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/17435390.2013.829590

关键词

nanoparticles; nanomedicine; cytotoxicity; oxidative stress; pro-inflammatory response; NanoTEST; testing strategy

资金

  1. NanoTEST project (EC) [201335]
  2. EC FP7 QualityNano [INFRA-2010-1.131, 214547-2]
  3. EC FP7 NANoREG [NMP.2012.1.3-3, 310584]
  4. EC FP7 NanoTOES [PITN-GA-2010-264506]
  5. Bristol Centre for Nanoscience and Quantum Information
  6. afsset [NoEST-2008/1/49]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Given the multiplicity of nanoparticles (NPs), there is a requirement to develop screening strategies to evaluate their toxicity. Within the EU-funded FP7 NanoTEST project, a panel of medically relevant NPs has been used to develop alternative testing strategies of NPs used in medical diagnostics. As conventional toxicity tests cannot necessarily be directly applied to NPs in the same manner as for soluble chemicals and drugs, we determined the extent of interference of NPs with each assay process and components. In this study, we fully characterized the panel of NP suspensions used in this project (poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)polyethylene oxide [PLGA-PEO], TiO2, SiO2, and uncoated and oleic-acid coated Fe3O4) and showed that many NP characteristics (composition, size, coatings, and agglomeration) interfere with a range of in vitro cytotoxicity assays (WST-1, MTT, lactate dehydrogenase, neutral red, propidium iodide, H-3-thymidine incorporation, and cell counting), pro-inflammatory response evaluation (ELISA for GM-CSF, IL-6, and IL-8), and oxidative stress detection (monoBromoBimane, dichlorofluorescein, and NO assays). Interferences were assay specific as well as NP specific. We propose how to integrate and avoid interference with testing systems as a first step of a screening strategy for biomedical NPs.

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