Mechanisms of genotoxicity. A review ofin vitroandin vivostudies with engineered nanoparticles

Abstract

Engineered nanoparticles (NPs) are widely used in different technologies but their unique properties might also cause adverse health effects. In reviewing recent in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity studies we discuss potential mechanisms of genotoxicity induced by NPs. Various factors that may influence genotoxic response, including physico-chemical properties and experimental conditions, are highlighted. From 4346 articles on NP toxicity, 112 describe genotoxicity studies (94 in vitro, 22 in vivo). The most used assays are the comet assay (58 in vitro, 9 in vivo), the micronucleus assay (31 in vitro, 14 in vivo), the chromosome aberrations test (10 in vitro, 1 in vivo) and the bacterial reverse mutation assay (13 studies). We describe advantages and potential problems with different methods and suggest the need for appropriate methodologies to be used for investigation of genotoxic effects of NPs, in vitro and in vivo.

Comparative modeling of exposure to airborne nanoparticles released by consumer spray products

“…NPs, such as genotoxicity as observed for silver, copper oxide and zinc oxide nanomaterials in vitro (Magdolenova et al, 2014) always has to be considered in a weight of evidence approach. This will render the overload hypothesis obsolete for risk management decisions for such materials.…”

Evaluation of nano-specific toxicity of zinc oxide, copper oxide, and silver nanoparticles through toxic ratio

“…Typically, these NPs have higher toxicities than their BP counterparts due to nano-specific effects. The nanotoxicological responses of metal (oxide) NPs have been associated with many toxic mechanisms (Bondarenko et al 2013;Golbamaki et al 2015;Magdolenova et al 2014;Wang et al 2012b), e.g., ROS, cell membrane permeability, DNA damage, and mechanical damage. Overall, toxic effects are derived from particles, metallic ions, or both (Bondarenko et al 2013;Magdolenova et al 2014;Wang et al 2012a;Xiao et al 2015).…”

“…Due to the efforts of many research groups, extensive toxicological data are available for certain nanoparticles (NPs) (Bondarenko et al 2013;Gajewicz et al 2012;Garner et al 2015;Golbamaki et al 2015;Kaweeteerawat et al 2015;Magdolenova et al 2014). However, conflicting results are frequently reported, which are usually attributed to incomplete characterizations of the NMs, different testing conditions, diverse model organisms, and different endpoints.…”

Photoprotection by Punica granatum seed oil nanoemulsion entrapping polyphenol-rich ethyl acetate fraction against UVB-induced DNA damage in human keratinocyte (HaCaT) cell line

“…DNA bases are considered to be the main targets (chromophores) of UVB irradiation, which result in base modification or dimmer formation [2]. The DNA lesions observed in the comet assay after UVB irradiation are thought to be transient DNA breaks during the nucleotide excision repair of the photoprodutcs [32,33]. Other mecanisms including oxidative damage to DNA due to the excess of reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation may also contribute to the UVB-induced comet formation [1,3,31].…”