4.5 Article

Toxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles in lung epithelial cells exposed at the air-liquid interface compared with in vivo assessment

期刊

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 502-511

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2014.12.023

关键词

Air-liquid interface; Copper oxide nanoparticles; In vitro exposure; Human bronchial epithelial cells; N-acetylcysteine; Oxidative stress

资金

  1. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences through Environmental Health Sciences Research Center in University of Iowa (NIEHS) [P30 ES005605]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The toxicity of spark-generated copper oxide nanoparticles (CuONPs) was evaluated in human bronchial epithelial cells (HBEC) and lung adenocarcinoma cells (A549 cells) using an in vitro air-liquid interface (ALI) exposure system. Dose-response results were compared to in vivo inhalation and instillation studies of CuONPs. Cells were exposed to filtered, particle-free clean air (controls) or spark-generated CuONPs. The number median diameter, geometric standard deviation and total number concentration of CuONPs were 9.2 nm, 1.48 and 2.27 x 10(7) particles/cm(3), respectively. Outcome measures included cell viability, cytotoxicity, oxidative stress and proinflammatory chemokine production. Exposure to clean air (2 or 4 h) did not induce toxicity in HBEC or A549 cells. Compared with controls, CuONP exposures significantly reduced cell viability, increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release and elevated levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and IL-8 in a dose-dependent manner. A549 cells were significantly more susceptible to CuONP effects than HBEC. Antioxidant treatment reduced CuONP-induced cytotoxicity. When dose was expressed per area of exposed epithelium there was good agreement of toxicity measures with murine in vivo studies. This demonstrates that in vitro ALI studies can provide meaningful data on nanotoxicity of metal oxides. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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