BackgroundSome manufactured nanoparticles are metal-based and have a wide variety of applications in electronic, engineering and medicine. Until now, many studies have described the potential toxicity of NPs on pulmonary target, while little attention has been paid to kidney which is considered to be a secondary target organ. The objective of this study, on human renal culture cells, was to assess the toxicity profile of metallic nanoparticles (TiO2, ZnO and CdS) usable in industrial production. Comparative studies were conducted, to identify whether particle properties impact cytotoxicity by altering the intracellular oxidative status.ResultsNanoparticles were first characterized by size, surface charge, dispersion and solubility. Cytotoxicity of NPs was then evaluated in IP15 (glomerular mesangial) and HK-2 (epithelial proximal) cell lines. ZnO and CdS NPs significantly increased the cell mortality, in a dose-dependent manner. Cytotoxic effects were correlated with the physicochemical properties of NPs tested and the cell type used. Analysis of reactive oxygen species and intracellular levels of reduced and oxidized glutathione revealed that particles induced stress according to their composition, size and solubility. Protein involved in oxidative stress such as NF-κb was activated with ZnO and CdS nanoparticles. Such effects were not observed with TiO2 nanoparticles.ConclusionOn glomerular and tubular human renal cells, ZnO and CdS nanoparticles exerted cytotoxic effects that were correlated with metal composition, particle scale and metal solubility. ROS production and oxidative stress induction clearly indicated their nephrotoxic potential.

No abstract

Glutathione-S-transferase Pi1 (GSTP1) and multidrug resistance protein 1 (MRP1) are overexpressed in melanoma, a skin cancer notoriously resistant to all current modalities of cancer therapy. To investigate the involvement of these detoxifying enzymes in the drug resistance of melanoma, an inducible (Tet-Ont system) antisense (AS) RNA strategy was used to specifically inhibit GSTP1 expression in A375 cells, a human melanoma cell line expressing high levels of GSTP1 and MRP1. Stable transfectant clones were established and analysed for GSTP1 inhibition by AS RNA. The clone A375-ASPi1, presenting a specific 40% inhibition of GSTP1 expression in the presence of doxycycline, was selected. Lowering the GSTP1 level significantly increased (about 3.3-fold) the sensitivity of A375-ASPi1 cells to etoposide. Inhibitors of glutathione synthesis (BSO), GSTs (curcumin, ethacrynic acid), and also of MRPs (MK571, sulphinpyrazone) improved the sensitising effect of GSTP1 AS RNA. All these inhibitors had stronger sensitising effects in control cells expressing high GSTP1 level (A375-ASPi1 cells in the absence of doxycycline). In conclusion, GSTP1 can act in a combined fashion with MRP1 to protect melanoma cells from toxic effects of etoposide.

Previous studies have shown that glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) can operate in synergy with efflux transporters, multidrug resistance proteins (MRPs), to confer resistance to several carcinogens, mutagens and anticancer drugs. To address the poorly documented role of the GSTM1 in cancer chemoresistance, we used CAL1 human melanoma cells expressing no endogenous GSTM1 and a high level of MRP1. Cells were transfected with an expression vector containing the GSTM1 cDNA, and different clones were selected expressing different levels of GSTM1 (RT-PCR, Western blot, and enzyme activity). Cells overexpressing GSTM1 displayed a 3-to 4-fold increase in resistance to anticancer drugs vincristine (VCR) and chlorambucil (CHB) in proliferation, cytotoxic, and clonogenic survival assays. Inhibitors of MRP1 (sulfinpyrazone, verapamil) and GST (dicumarol, curcumin) completely reversed the GSTM1-associated resistance to VCR, indicating that a MRP efflux function is necessary to potentiate GSTM1-mediated resistance to VCR. Conversely, MRP1 inhibitors had no effect on the sensitivity to CHB. Using immunofluorescence assay, GSTM1 was also shown to protect microtubule network integrity from VCR-induced inhibition of microtubule polymerization. In conclusion, these results show that GSTM1 alone is involved in melanoma resistance to CHB, whereas it can act in synergy with MRP1 to protect cells from toxic effects of VCR.

Many uncertainties remain regarding the potential toxic effect of nanoparticles.