4.6 Article

Amorphous silica nanoparticles enhance cross-presentation in murine dendritic cells

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.09.095

关键词

Nanoparticle; Silica; Immune-modulating effect; Safety

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (MEXT)
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  3. Knowledge Cluster Initiative (MEXT)
  4. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (MHLW)
  5. Ministry of the Environment
  6. Food Safety Commission (Cabinet Office)
  7. Cosmetology Research Foundation
  8. Smoking Research Foundation
  9. Takeda Science Foundation
  10. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23659078, 21390046] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanomaterials (NMs) exhibit unique physicochemical properties and innovative functions, and they are increasingly being used in a wide variety of fields. Ensuring the safety of NMs is now an urgent task. Recently, we reported that amorphous silica nanoparticles (nSPs), one of the most widely used NMs, enhance antigen-specific cellular immune responses and may therefore aggravate immune diseases. Thus, to ensure the design of safer nSPs, investigations into the effect of nSPs on antigen presentation in dendritic cells, which are central orchestrators of the adaptive immune response, are now needed. Here, we show that nSPs with diameters of 70 and 100 nm enhanced exogenous antigen entry into the cytosol from endosomes and induced cross-presentation, whereas submicron-sized silica particles (>100 nm) did not. Furthermore, we show that surface modification of nSPs suppressed cross-presentation. Although further studies are required to investigate whether surface-modified nSPs suppress immune-modulating effects in vivo, the current results indicate that appropriate regulation of the characteristics of nSPs, such as size and surface properties, will be critical for the design of safer nSPs. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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