4.6 Article

Proteomics-based safety evaluation of multi-walled carbon nanotubes

期刊

TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY
卷 242, 期 3, 页码 256-262

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2009.10.015

关键词

Carbon nanotubes; Safety evaluation; Proteomics; Protein expression; In vitro

资金

  1. CLUSTER (the second stage) of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports Science and Technology, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the biological responses to multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). Human monoblastic leukemia cells (U937) were exposed to As-grown MWCNTs and MWCNTs that were thermally treated at 1800 degrees C (HTT1800) and 2800 degrees C (HTT2800). Cell proliferation was highly inhibited by As-grown but not HTT2800. However, both As-grown and HTT1800, which include some impurities, were cytotoxic. Proteomics analysis of MWCNT-exposed cells revealed 37 protein spots on 2-dimensional electrophoresis gels that significantly changed (p<0.05) after exposure to HTT1800 with a little iron and 20 spots that changed after exposure to HTT2800. Peptide mass fingerprinting identified 45 proteins that included heat shock protein beta-1, neutral alpha-glucosidase AB, and DNA mismatch repair protein Msh2. These altered proteins play roles in metabolism, biosynthesis, response to stress, and cell differentiation. Although HTT2800 did not inhibit cell proliferation or cause cytotoxicity in vitro, some proteins related to the response to stress were changed. Moreover, DJ-1 protein, which is a biomarker of Parkinson's disease and is related to cancer, was identified after exposure to both MWCNTs. These results show that the cytotoxicity of MWCNTs depends on their impurities, such as iron, while MWCNTs themselves cause some biological responses directly and/or indirectly in vitro. Our proteomics-based approach for detecting biological responses to nanomaterials is a promising new method for detailed safety evaluations. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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