NanoTEST in a Nutshell

Dušinská, Maria; Tran, Lang

doi:10.3109/17435390.2014.991774

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Validation of an in vitro method to detect immunotoxicity must rely on high quality in vivo data. In this regard, it is essential that a sufficiently large number of positive and negative reference compounds, including both drugs and chemicals, are tested (Gennari et al, 2005;Dusinska et al, 2015). The suitability of different in vitro immunotoxicity methods for the analysis of NM-induced immunotoxicity is widely discussed (Gennari et al, 2005;Pfaller et al, 2010;Oostingh et al, 2011;Luebke, 2012;Hartung and Corsini, 2013;Boverhof et al, 2014;Giannakou et al, 2016).…”

Section: Testing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, cytochalasin B inhibits endocytosis and may thus prevent uptake of NMs. Therefore, the cells need to be exposed to NMs several hours before adding cytochalasin B (Magdolenova et al, 2012;Dusinska et al, 2015). Additionally, at least 24 h treatment is recommended to cover 1e1.5 cell cycles, as some compounds including NMs might be active only at a specific cell cycle stage and also access to nuclear DNA will be facilitated by the absence of the nuclear membrane during mitosis .…”

Section: Clastogenicity and Aneugenicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several cytotoxicity, immunotoxicity and genotoxicity assays have been adapted to HTS screening ). An example of the adaptation of a standard assay to HTS screening and miniaturization is the comet assay that can measure DNA breaks and specific DNA lesions (as well as, perhaps, global DNA methylation) (Watson et al, 2014;Dusinska et al, 2015;Harris et al, 2015;El Yamani et al, 2017). As well as saving time, the ability to run several hundred sample gels in one experiment means that interexperimental variation is less of an issue.…”

Section: Microarraysmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The development of alternative testing strategies and HTS methods for hazard assessment of NMs has been proposed in the NanoTEST project (www.nanotest-fp7.eu) (Dusinska et al, 2009Dusinska and Tran, 2015). Cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, immunotoxicity and genotoxicity were investigated in various cell culture models, representing eight different organs (blood, vascular system, lung, brain, liver, kidney, gastrointestinal system and placenta).…”

Section: Testing Strategy For Hazard Assessment Of Nmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tools for detecting NMs in situ must be developed. In silico estimation of toxicity based on toxicogenomics databases, monitoring many biomarkers simultaneously, will be increasingly important, providing a rapid and sensitive approach for immunotoxicity and genotoxicity identification and adverse health effects prediction (Lan et al, 2014;Dusinska et al, 2015).…”

Section: Future Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Immunotoxicity, genotoxicity and epigenetic toxicity of nanomaterials: New strategies for toxicity testing?

Dušinská

Tulinská

Yamani

et al. 2017

Food and Chemical Toxicology

Self Cite

118

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe unique properties of nanomaterials (NMs) are beneficial in numerous industrial and medical applications. However, they could also induce unintended effects. Thus, a proper strategy for toxicity testing is essential in human hazard and risk assessment. Toxicity can be tested in vivo and in vitro; in compliance with the 3Rs, alternative strategies for in vitro testing should be further developed for NMs. Robust, standardized methods are of great importance in nanotoxicology, with comprehensive material characterization and uptake as an integral part of the testing strategy. Oxidative stress has been shown to be an underlying mechanism of possible toxicity of NMs, causing both immunotoxicity and genotoxicity. For testing NMs in vitro, a battery of tests should be performed on cells of human origin, either cell lines or primary cells, in conditions as close as possible to an in vivo situation. Novel toxicity pathways, particularly epigenetic modification, should be assessed along with conventional toxicity testing methods. However, to initiate epigenetic toxicity screens for NM exposure, there is a need to better understand their adverse effects on the epigenome, to identify robust and reproducible causal links between exposure, epigenetic changes and adverse phenotypic endpoints, and to develop improved assays to monitor epigenetic toxicity.

show abstract

Section: Testing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clastogenicity and Aneugenicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Microarraysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Testing Strategy For Hazard Assessment Of Nmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Future Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Immunotoxicity, genotoxicity and epigenetic toxicity of nanomaterials: New strategies for toxicity testing?

Dušinská

Tulinská

Yamani

et al. 2017

Food and Chemical Toxicology

Self Cite

118

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Lessons learned from research on air pollution and other particles in the toxicology of nanomaterials and vice versa

Dušinská

Vogel

2015

Environ and Mol Mutagen

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genotoxicity testing of nanomaterials

Landsiedel

Honarvar

Seiffert

et al. 2022

WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanomaterials have outstanding and unprecedented advantageous material properties but may also cause adverse effects in humans upon exposure. Testing nanomaterials for genotoxic properties is challenging because traditional testing methods were designed for small, soluble molecules and may not be easily applicable without modifications. This review critically examines available genotoxicity tests for use with nanomaterials, including DNA damage tests such as the comet assay, gene mutation tests such as the mouse lymphoma and hprt assay, and chromosome mutation tests such as the micronucleus test and the chromosome aberration test. It presents arguments for the relative usefulness of various tests, such as preferring the micronucleus test over the chromosome aberration test for scoring chromosome mutations and preferring mammalian cell gene mutation tests because the Ames test has limited utility. Finally, it points out the open questions and further needs in adapting genotoxicity tests for nanomaterials, such as validation, reference nanomaterials, and the selection of top test concentrations, as well as the relevance and applicability of test systems and the need to define testing strategies.This article is categorized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine

show abstract

NanoTEST in a Nutshell

Cited by 6 publications

References 22 publications

Immunotoxicity, genotoxicity and epigenetic toxicity of nanomaterials: New strategies for toxicity testing?

Immunotoxicity, genotoxicity and epigenetic toxicity of nanomaterials: New strategies for toxicity testing?

Lessons learned from research on air pollution and other particles in the toxicology of nanomaterials and vice versa

Genotoxicity testing of nanomaterials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About