4.7 Review

Autophagy as a Possible Underlying Mechanism of Nanomaterial Toxicity

期刊

NANOMATERIALS
卷 4, 期 3, 页码 548-582

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano4030548

关键词

nanomaterials; oxidative stress; inflammation; autophagy; lysosomes

资金

  1. C'Nano Ile-de-France
  2. CNRS
  3. CEA
  4. MESR
  5. Region Ile-de-France
  6. Agence Nationale de la Securite sanitaire, de l'environnement et du travail (Anses)
  7. DHU A-TVB (Departement Hospital-Universitaire Ageing-Thorax Vessel Blood)
  8. Labex SERENADE [11-LABX-0064]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rapid development of nanotechnologies is raising safety concerns because of the potential effects of engineered nanomaterials on human health, particularly at the respiratory level. Since the last decades, many in vivo studies have been interested in the pulmonary effects of different classes of nanomaterials. It has been shown that some of them can induce toxic effects, essentially depending on their physico-chemical characteristics, but other studies did not identify such effects. Inflammation and oxidative stress are currently the two main mechanisms described to explain the observed toxicity. However, the exact underlying mechanism(s) still remain(s) unknown and autophagy could represent an interesting candidate. Autophagy is a physiological process in which cytoplasmic components are digested via a lysosomal pathway. It has been shown that autophagy is involved in the pathogenesis and the progression of human diseases, and is able to modulate the oxidative stress and pro-inflammatory responses. A growing amount of literature suggests that a link between nanomaterial toxicity and autophagy impairment could exist. In this review, we will first summarize what is known about the respiratory effects of nanomaterials and we will then discuss the possible involvement of autophagy in this toxicity. This review should help understand why autophagy impairment could be taken as a promising candidate to fully understand nanomaterials toxicity.

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

4.7
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