4.8 Article

Hollow carbon spheres trigger inflammasome-dependent IL-1β secretion in macrophages

期刊

CARBON
卷 113, 期 -, 页码 243-251

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2016.11.049

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Commission [214281, 263215, 604391, 696656]
  2. Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning
  3. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [939011k]
  4. University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  5. Galician Government, Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is disputed whether inflammasome activation leading to secretion of pro-inflammatory interleukin (IL)-1 beta in macrophages transpires independently of cell death or whether the two processes are linked. Here, we synthesized hollow carbon spheres (HCS) and investigated their effects on primary human monocyte-derived macrophages (HMDM); short (500 nm) non-functionalized single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) were included for comparison. HCS (250 nm) were readily taken up by HMDM and induced ROS production, but did not trigger a loss of cell viability. However, a dose- and time-dependent release of IL-1 beta was detected in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed macrophages upon exposure to HCS, while SWCNT-induced secretion of IL-1 beta was less pronounced. HCS-triggered IL-1 beta secretion was cathepsin B- and caspase-1-dependent, and was accompanied by a reduction in intracellular K+. Furthermore, cytokine secretion was reduced following treatment with the antioxidant, N-acetylcysteine, and cytochalasin D, an inhibitor of actin polymerization. HCS also triggered IL-1 beta release in LPS-primed THP.1 cells, but not'in THP.1 cells with silencing of ASC, NLRP3, or caspase-1 expression, providing evidence that IL-1 beta was elicited through NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These studies shed light on the effects of HCS on primary macrophages, and show that spherical carbon-based nanoparticles are potent inflammasome activators. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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