4.6 Article

Exploring the potential role of tungsten carbide cobalt (WC-Co) nanoparticle internalization in observed toxicity toward lung epithelial cells in vitro

期刊

TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY
卷 278, 期 1, 页码 1-8

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2014.04.008

关键词

Nanotoxicity; Nanoparticle; Hard metal; Lung disease; Pulmonary exposure; Internalization

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P303M103488, P30RR0321R8, P30RR031155]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tungsten carbide cobalt (WC-Co) has been recognized as a workplace inhalation hazard in the manufacturing, mining and drilling industries by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Exposure to WC-Co is known to cause hard metal lung disease but the relationship between exposure, toxicity and development of disease remain poorly understood. To better understand this relationship, the present study examined the role of WC-Co particle size and internalization on toxicity using lung epithelial cells. We demonstrated that nano-and micro-WC-Co particles exerted toxicity in a dose-and time-dependent manner and that nano-WC-Co particles caused significantly greater toxicity at lower concentrations and shorter exposure times compared to micro-WC-Co particles. WC-Co particles in the nano-size range (not micron-sized) were internalized by lung epithelial cells, which suggested that internalization may play a key role in the enhanced toxicity of nano-WC-Co particles over micro-WC-Co particles. Further exploration of the internalization process indicated that there may be multiple mechanisms involved in WC-Co internalization such as actin and microtubule based cytoskeletal rearrangements. These findings support our hypothesis that WC-Co particle internalization contributes to cellular toxicity and suggest that therapeutic treatments inhibiting particle internalization may serve as prophylactic approaches for those at risk of WC-Co particle exposure. (C) 2014 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