4.6 Article

Nanoparticle-driven DNA damage mimics irradiation-related carcinogenesis pathways

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 241-251

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00006707

关键词

DNA damage; H2A.X histone; nanoparticles; particles with a 50% cut-off aerodynamic diameter of 10 mu m; reactive oxidative species

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G9900991B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The epidemiological association between cancer and exposure to ambient air pollution particles (particles with a 50% cut-off aerodynamic diameter of 10 jam (PM10)) has been related to the ability of PM10 and its constituent nanoparticles (NPs) to cause reactive oxidative species (ROS)-driven DNA damage. However, there are no data on the molecular response to these genotoxic effects. In order to assess whether PM10, NP and ROS-driven DNA damage induce carcinogenesis pathways, A549 cells were treated with tert-butyl-hyperperoxide (Tbh), urban dust (UD), carbon black (CB), nanoparticulate CB (NPCB), benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) and NPCB coated with BaP for <= 24 h. Single- and double-strand breakage of DNA was determined by comet assay; cell cycle status was analysed using flow cytometry. Nuclear extracts or acid-extracted histories were used for Western blot analysis of p-ser15-p53 (p53 phosphorylated at ser15), p53 binding protein (53BP) 1, phospho-histone H2A.X (p-H2A.X) and phospho-BRCA1 (p-BRCA1). UD caused both single- and double-strand DNA breaks, while other tested NPs caused only single-strand DNA breaks. NPs significantly altered cell cycle kinetics. Tbh enhanced p-H2A.X after 1 and 6 h (2.1- and 2.2-fold, respectively). NP increased 53BP1 expression at 1 h (2.4-8.7-fold) and p-BRCA1 at 1-6 h. N-acetylcysteine blocked NP-driven p-ser15-p53 response. In conclusion, nanoparticles and reactive oxidative species induce DNA damage, activating p53 and proteins related to DNA repair, mimicking irradiation-related carcinogenesis pathways.

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