4.6 Article

Cytocompatibility of carboxylated multi-wall carbon nanotubes in stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth

期刊

NANOTECHNOLOGY
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6528/ac335b

关键词

carbon materials; in vitro study; nanotechnology; tissue engineering

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) [APQ-02342-17]
  2. Rede Mineira de Pesquisa e Inovacao para Bioengenharia de Nanossistemas (RM PI-BEM) [TEC -RED-00282-16]
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [433461/2018-7]
  4. Rede de Nanotecnologia Aplicada ao Agronegocio (AGRONANO)
  5. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  6. Pos-Graduacao em Ciencias Biologicas (PPGCBIO-UFJF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carboxylated multi-wall carbon nanotubes (MWCNT-COOH) have no toxic effects on human stem cell viability, making them potentially useful in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
Carboxylated multi-wall carbon nanotube (MWCNT-COOH) presents unique properties due to nanoscale dimensions and permits a broad range of applications in different fields, such as bone tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. However, the cytocompatibility of MWCNT-COOH with human stem cells is poorly understood. Thus, studies elucidating how MWCNT-COOH affects human stem cell viability are essential to a safer application of nanotechnologies. Using stem cells from the human exfoliated deciduous teeth model, we have evaluated the effects of MWCNT-COOH on cell viability, oxidative cell stress, and DNA integrity. Results demonstrated that despite the decreased metabolism of mitochondria, MWCNT-COOH had no toxicity against stem cells. Cells maintained viability after MWCNT-COOH exposure. MWCNT-COOH did not alter the superoxide dismutase activity and did not cause genotoxic effects. The present findings are relevant to the potential application of MWCNT-COOH in the tissue engineering and regenerative medicine fields.

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