4.5 Article

Cytotoxicity and cellular mechanisms of toxicity of CuO NPs in mussel cells in vitro and comparative sensitivity with human cells

期刊

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
卷 48, 期 -, 页码 146-158

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2018.01.013

关键词

CuO nanoparticles; Mussel hemocytes and gill cells; Pulmonary alveolar epithelial cells; Cytotoxicity; Sublethal effects; Oxidative stress

资金

  1. EU 7th Framework Programme (NanoReTox project) [CP-FP 214478-2]
  2. Spanish Ministry (NanoCancer project) [CTM2009-13477]
  3. Basque Government [IT810-13, IT620-13]
  4. University of the Basque Country [UFI 11/37]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a need to assess human and ecosystem health effects of copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO NPs), extensively used in many industrial products. Here, we aimed to determine the cytotoxicity and cellular mechanisms involved in the toxicity of CuO NPs in mussel cells (hemocytes and gill cells) in parallel with exposures to ionic Cu and bulk CuO, and to compare the sensitivity of mussel primary cells with a well-established human cell line (pulmonary TT1 cells). At similar doses, CuO NPs promoted dose-dependent cytotoxicity and increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) production in mussel and human cells. In mussel cells, ionic Cu was more toxic than CuO NPs and the latter more than bulk CuO. Ionic Cu and CuO NPs increased catalase and acid phosphatase activities in both mussel cells and decreased gill cells Na-K-ATPase activity. All Cu forms produced DNA damage in hemocytes, whereas in gill cells only ionic Cu and CuO NPs were genotoxic. Induction of the MXR transport activity was found in gill cells exposed to all forms of Cu and in hemocytes exposed to ionic Cu and CuO NPs. Phagocytosis increased only in hemocytes exposed to CuO NPs, indicating a nanoparticle-specific immunostimulatory effect. In conclusion, toxicity of CuO NPs is driven by ROS in human and mussel cells. Mussel cells respond to CuO NP exposure by triggering an array of defensive mechanisms

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

4.5
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