Impact of silica nanoparticle surface chemistry on protein corona formation and consequential interactions with biological cells

Abstract

functionalization is often used to improve NP biocompatibility or to enhance cellular uptake. But in biological media, the formation of a protein corona adds a level of complexity. The aim of this study was to investigate in vitro the influence of NP surface functionalization on their cellular uptake and the biological response induced. 50nm fluorescent silica NP were functionalized either with amine or carboxylic groups, in presence or in absence of polyethylene glycol (PEG). NP were incubated with macrophages, cellular uptake and cellular response were assessed in terms of cytotoxicity, pro-inflammatory response and oxidative stress. The NP protein corona was also characterized by protein mass spectroscopy. Results showed that NP uptake was enhanced in absence of PEG, while NP adsorption at the cell membrane was fostered by an initial positively charged NP surface. NP toxicity was not correlated with NP uptake. NP surface functionalization also influenced the formation of the protein corona as the profile of protein binding differed among the NP types.

Toxicological Risk Assessment of Emerging Nanomaterials: Cytotoxicity, Cellular Uptake, Effects on Biogenesis and Cell Organelle Activity, Acute Toxicity and Biodistribution of Oxide Nanoparticles

“…The nature of the coating, including resulting charge, surface chemistry and particle hydrodynamic size, influences the adsorption of proteins on the surface of nanoparticles: the protein corona [43,44]. For example, we demonstrated that bare silica beads covered by either a gold or a titanium oxide layer have different preferential binding to proteins [43].…”

Silica nanoparticles induce autophagosome accumulation via activation of the EIF2AK3 and ATF6 UPR pathways in hepatocytes

“…Silica nanoparticles (SiNPs) are one of the most widely used engineered nanomaterials. SiNPs with favorable properties (biocompatibility and biodegradability) have been widely exploited in the cosmetics, food, and pharmaceutical industries and in the biomedical fields [15][16][17][18]. With the widespread prevalence of SiNPs, potential dermal, oral, or intranasal exposure chances have increased.…”

Cytotoxicity-Related Bioeffects Induced by Nanoparticles: The Role of Surface Chemistry

“…Moreover, the uptake level that is affected by surface charge may vary with cell type. For example, positively charged silica NPs (20, 30, 50, 80 nm) are more likely to be endocytosed than their pristine or negatively charged counterparts in A549 cells (Ojea-Jiménez et al, 2016); however, in RAW264.7 cells, 50 nm silica NPs with either a positive or a negative charge exhibited similar uptake levels (Kurtz-Chalot et al, 2017). In HepG2 cells, the cellular uptake of positively charged 3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (APTES)-ZnO NPs (10-30 nm) was greater than the uptake of pristine ZnO NPs (Bartczak et al, 2015).…”

“…Regarding charged NPs, positive and negative charges exhibit different protein binding capacities. For example, silica NPs (50 nm) decorated with amine or carboxyl groups exhibited different protein binding levels, with the negatively charged silica NPs adsorbing more proteins from human serum than were adsorbed by their positively charged counterparts (Kurtz-Chalot et al, 2017). In another study, it was also found that polystyrene (PS) NPs (140 nm) decorated with carboxyl or amine group exhibited different binding capacities to human serum protein.…”

“…In addition to protein levels, surface charge could also define the protein species adsorbed onto NPs. For example, more total and complement protein species were adsorbed on positively charged silica NPs (50 nm) than were adsorbed on their negatively charged counterparts (Kurtz-Chalot et al, 2017). In another study, the protein binding of amine-functionalized and bare PS NPs (100 nm) was compared.…”