4.6 Article

A Comparative Analysis of In Vitro Toxicity of Synthetic Zeolites on IMR-90 Human Lung Fibroblast Cells

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 26, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26113194

关键词

zeolite; fibroblast; lung; IMR-90; cytotoxicity; glutathione

资金

  1. Institute of Clinical Medicine Research at Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the cytotoxicity of different types and compositions of zeolites on human lung fibroblast cells, showing that FAU-S exhibited higher toxicity. Different zeolites also showed significant differences in the formation of phagosomes within cells and gene expression.
Broad industrial application of zeolites increases the opportunity of inhalation. However, the potential impact of different types and compositions of zeolite on cytotoxicity is still unknown. Four types of synthetic zeolites have been prepared for assessing the effect on lung fibroblast: two zeolite L (LTL-R and LTL-D), ZSM-5 (MFI-S), and faujasite (FAU-S). The cytotoxicity of zeolites on human lung fibroblast (IMR-90) was assessed using WST1 cell proliferation assay, mitochondrial function, membrane leakage of lactate dehydrogenase, reduced glutathione levels, and mitochondrial membrane potential were assessed under control. Intracellular changes were examined using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Toxicity-related gene expressions were evaluated by PCR array. The result showed significantly higher toxicity in IMR-90 cells with FAU-S than LTL-R, LTL-D and MFI-S exposure. TEM showed FAU-S, spheroidal zeolite with a low Si/Al ratio, was readily internalized forming numerous phagosomes in IMR-90 cells, while the largest and disc-shaped zeolites showed the lowest toxicity and were located in submembranous phagosomes in IMR-90 cells. Differential expression of TNF related genes was detected using PCR arrays and confirmed using qRT-PCR analysis of selected genes. Collectively, the exposure of different zeolites shows different toxicity on IMR-90 cells.

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