4.8 Article

Comparison of Cytotoxicity and Inhibition of Membrane ABC Transporters Induced by MWCNTs with Different Length and Functional Groups

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 50, 期 7, 页码 3985-3994

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05772

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21577061]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20131270]
  3. National Science Foundation
  4. Environmental Protection Agency [DBI-0830117, DBI-1266377]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental studies indicate that multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) have the potential to induce cytotoxicity. However, the reports are often inconsistent and even contradictory. Additionally, adverse effects of MWCNTs at low concentration are not well understood. In this study, we systemically compared adverse effects of six MWCNTs including pristine MWCNTs, hydroxyl-MWCNTs and carboxyl-MWCNTs of two different lengths (0.5-2 mu m and 10-30 mu m) on human hepatoma cell line HepG2. Results showed that MWCNTs induced cytotoxicity by increasing reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation and damaging cell function. Pristine short MWCNTs induced higher cytotoxicity than pristine long MWCNTs. Functionalization increased cytotoxicity of long MWCNTs, but reduced cytotoxicity of short MWCNTs. Further, our results indicated that the six MWCNTs, at nontoxic concentration, might not be environmentally safe as they inhibited ABC transporters' efflux capabilities. This inhibition was observed even at very low concentrations, which were 401000 tithes lower than their effective concentrations on Cytotoxicity. The inhibition of ABC transporters significantly increased cytotoxicity of arsenic, a known substrate of ABC transporters, indicating a chemosensitizing effect of MWCNTs. Plasma membrane damage was likely the mechanism by which the six MWCNTs inhibited ABC transporter activity. This study provides insight into risk assessments of low levels of MWCNTs in the environment.

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

4.8
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