4.7 Article

A 3-dimensional human embryonic stem cell (hESC)-derived model to detect developmental neurotoxicity of nanoparticles

期刊

ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY
卷 87, 期 4, 页码 721-733

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00204-012-0984-2

关键词

Human embryonic stem cells; Neurospheres; Developmental neurotoxicity (DNT); Polyethylene nanoparticles; Methylmercury

资金

  1. Doerenkamp-Zbinden Foundation
  2. EU-FP7 ESNATS project
  3. Konstanz Research School Chemical Biology
  4. Agency for Science and Technology Research
  5. [SF0690063s08]
  6. [ETF8561]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanoparticles (NPs) have been shown to accumulate in organs, cross the blood-brain barrier and placenta, and have the potential to elicit developmental neurotoxicity (DNT). Here, we developed a human embryonic stem cell (hESC)-derived 3-dimensional (3-D) in vitro model that allows for testing of potential developmental neurotoxicants. Early central nervous system PAX6(+) precursor cells were generated from hESCs and differentiated further within 3-D structures. The 3-D model was characterized for neural marker expression revealing robust differentiation toward neuronal precursor cells, and gene expression profiling suggested a predominantly forebrain-like development. Altered neural gene expression due to exposure to non-cytotoxic concentrations of the known developmental neurotoxicant, methylmercury, indicated that the 3-D model could detect DNT. To test for specific toxicity of NPs, chemically inert polyethylene NPs (PE-NPs) were chosen. They penetrated deep into the 3-D structures and impacted gene expression at non-cytotoxic concentrations. NOTCH pathway genes such as HES5 and NOTCH1 were reduced in expression, as well as downstream neuronal precursor genes such as NEUROD1 and ASCL1. FOXG1, a patterning marker, was also reduced. As loss of function of these genes results in severe nervous system impairments in mice, our data suggest that the 3-D hESC-derived model could be used to test for Nano-DNT.

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

4.7
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