Journal of Nanomaterials

Journal of Nanomaterials / 2019 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 7518482 | 11 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7518482

Effect of Size, Shape, and Composition on the Interaction of Different Nanomaterials with HeLa Cells

Academic Editor: Enrico Bergamaschi
Received30 Apr 2018
Accepted18 Oct 2018
Published04 Feb 2019

Abstract

The application of nanomaterials in the fields of medicine and biotechnology is of enormous interest, particularly in the areas where traditional solutions have failed. Unfortunately, there is very little information on how to optimize the preparation of nanomaterials for their use in cell culture and on the effects that these can trigger on standard cellular systems. These data are pivotal in nanobiotechnology for the development of different applications and to evaluate/compare the cytotoxicity among the different nanomaterials or studies. The lack of information drives many laboratories to waste resources performing redundant comparative tests that often lead to partial answers due to differences in (i) the nature of the start-up material, (ii) the preparation, (iii) functionalization, (iv) resuspension, (v) the stability/dose of the nanomaterial, etc. These variations in addition to the different analytical systems contribute to the artefactual interpretation of the effects of nanomaterials and to inconsistent conclusions between different laboratories. Here, we present a brief review of a wide range of nanomaterials (nanotubes, various nanoparticles, graphene oxide, and liposomes) with HeLa cells as a reference cellular system. These human cells, widely used as cellular models for many studies, represent a reference system for comparative studies between different nanomaterials or conditions and, in the last term, between different laboratories.

1. Introduction

Nanomaterials offer revolutionary solutions to traditional problems, and thus, they have been incorporated into many different consumer goods including many for human consumption such as cosmetics, biotechnological and pharmacological products, medicines, or food additives. Unfortunately, major developments are never exempt of associated problems. Nanomaterials have been connected with all types of toxicological, cumulative, or environmental problems [16]. However, the reality is that during evolution, vegetable and animal species have been exposed to environmentally generated nanomaterials, and this has resulted in the appearance of natural resistances. The issue to be faced now is to understand and control the effect of the many different anthropogenic nanomaterials currently in use. Society needs to know the implications of the use of the different nanomaterials in everyday products. But to find out the possible side effects of the exposure for each nanomaterial, it is necessary to establish a series of in vitro and in vivo objective tests.

Cellular models are very convenient because they do not require complex laboratory facilities and can provide pivotal information on the toxicological effects of nanomaterials; furthermore, nowadays, there are many cellular models to investigate these interactions with nanomaterials. In fact, many studies have been carried out using cells of different origins and diverse natures. However, this poorly protocolised research has resulted in the production of confusing and incoherent data that result in chaos when it comes to understanding and comparing the effect of a particular nanomaterial at the same dose in a unique cellular system.

In our laboratories, we have been studying the in vitro effects of several types of nanomaterials for almost a decade. This has offered us a broad critical view on the effects produced by many of these compounds in different cellular systems. We now know that the same nanomaterial can produce different cytotoxic effects in different cells, depending on the nature and origin of the cell [7]. For example, macrophages generally suffer more cumulative or degradative effects-i.e., reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulation-than other cells for the same material at the same dose due to their high avidity for capturing nanomaterials [813]. On the contrary, malignant melanoma or glioblastoma multiforme cells have great resistance to cytotoxicity for most nanomaterials [7, 14, 15]. Also, some cells have a special idiosyncrasy that makes them tolerant to certain types of nanomaterials, such as neurons. These cells can survive multiwalled carbon nanotube exposure better than macrophages but are much more sensitive to any other nanomaterials [8, 1618].

There are many examples in the literature where cells exposed to the same nanomaterial respond differently. This is the case of carbon nanotubes where the reported effects range from innocuity to very acute toxicological or long-term accumulative effects [1924]. Moreover, in the case of carbon nanotubes, there are different cellular phenotypes, after exposure, depending on the type of the used nanotubes. For example, single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) seem to interact more with DNA [18, 25, 26] than multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) that display biomimetic properties with the cytoskeleton [9, 15, 19, 27]. This fact reveals the unique features of each nanomaterial, for example in this case, carbon nanotubes, the importance of the diameter of the tube in the interaction with different biological filaments such as DNA (2 nm), intermediate filaments (10-15 nm), microtubules (25 nm), or actin (4-8 nm).

For all these reasons, it seems necessary to carry out standard tests where a single cell type is exposed to the same concentration of different nanomaterials, functionalized, and processed identically, following the same protocol. This test allows the direct comparison of the effect of the different nanomaterials on a unique system in vitro. For this study, we have chosen HeLa cells as a reference cellular system. This is a human epithelial cell line originally obtained from a cervical carcinoma that is universally employed as a reference cellular model to test numerous toxic products, among them, nanomaterials. One of the great advantages of using this cell line is that its genome and proteome are known in great detail [2830], and there are numerous studies performed in many laboratories that provide extraordinary experimental support for these analyses.

On the other hand, this cell line has been used in many laboratories on the assumption that it comprises putatively homogeneous clonal cell population. However, recent studies demonstrate that HeLa cells are heterogeneous [31]. This fact means that the results between different laboratories are not always directly comparable or reproducible, reinforcing the idea that a standard protocol must be carried out in the same cell line-from the same laboratory-to test different nanomaterials processed in identical conditions. In this study, we investigate the effect of identically prepared (functionalization/dose) nanomaterials. These were incubated for equal periods of time and were analysed following the same protocol for direct comparison of their effect on these cells, thus to establish a comparison of their exposure phenotypes on this unique cell model.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Nanomaterials

Different nanomaterials were used in this work. High-purity MWCNTs were obtained from Nanocyl NC3100™. These nanotubes have been fully characterized in previous publications [15]. Monodisperse silica spheres (500 nm) were prepared using the Stöber method as described in our previous work [32]. These silica particles were coated with carbon nanotubes as detailed elsewhere [33]. Cationic liposomes (CLPs) were commercially obtained from Nanovex Biotechnologies SL and prepared from basic components by a hydration process. All liposomes showed a narrow size distribution with mean particle sizes of 150-200 nm and polydispersity indexes of less than 0.4. TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles (Z-COTE®) were commercial (BASF Chemical Company). ZnO:Co2+ nanowires were synthesised in-house [3436]. Chemically exfoliated graphene oxide (GO) was purchased commercially (Graphenea, Spain). Morphological characterization of the nanomaterials was performed using a JEOL JEM 1011 transmission electron microscope (TEM) operating at 100 kV. Nanomaterials were suspended in ethanol and adsorbed onto 400 mesh carbon-coated copper grids.

2.2. Functionalization of Nanomaterials

Nanomaterials were resuspended and functionalized in a saline solution containing 30% fetal bovine serum (FBS, Gibco) by mild probe sonication (3-5 cycles, 2-5 at a frequency of 20 kHz) in a SONICS Vibra-Cell VCX130 Ultrasonic Processor (Sonics & Materials Inc.), before resuspension in cell culture medium and addition to the cell cultures.

2.3. Cell Culture, Cycle and Viability Tests, Staining, Immunofluorescence, and Imaging

HeLa cells (from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory Cell Bank, passage 10) were cultured under standard conditions in Minimum Essential Medium (MEM) containing 10% FBS and antibiotics (Gibco, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Phase contrast micrographs were taken at different time points using a Progress CT5 (Jenoptik) digital camera coupled to a Nikon Eclipse TS100-F. Cell viability assessments were performed using a standard trypan blue assay. The cell cycle distribution was analysed by flow cytometry using a Muse® Cell Analyzer (Merck KGaA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Immunostaining was performed on cells fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde. Phalloidin-tetramethylrhodamine B isothiocyanate, Hoechst dye (bisbenzimide), and Acridine Orange hemi (zinc chloride) salt (all from Sigma-Aldrich) were used to stain actin, DNA, and cytoplasm, respectively. Microtubules were immunostained with the B512 anti-α-tubulin antibody (Sigma-Aldrich) and a secondary goat anti-mouse IgG antibody conjugated with Alexa Fluor 488 (Molecular Probes, Invitrogen). Confocal microscopy images were performed with a Nikon A1R confocal microscope and were processed with the NIS-Elements Advanced Research software. All confocal cell images are pseudocoloured.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Carbon Nanotubes

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) represent a class of highly versatile materials that display very interesting mechanical, thermal, electronic, and biological properties [37]. These nanomaterials have been broadly used in numerous in vitro and in vivo toxicity studies, and there is a lot of documentation regarding their effects. However, there is some confusion in the literature that we think could be due to the purity, the surface treatment, or the morphological properties of the nanotubes, among others. Here, we investigate the effect of MWCNTs on HeLa cells incubated with 50 μg/ml. Figure 1(b) shows the characterization of these nanomaterials by TEM and the different steps of the internalization in these cells. For their use, MWCNTs are functionalized with serum proteins to trigger receptor-mediated endocytosis (Figure 1(a)) [3840]. Figure 1(c) (B) shows HeLa cells incubated with 50 μg/ml of MWCNTs for 72 h. Previous studies report how MWCNTs have a high affinity for the cellular cytoskeleton [9, 21, 41], causing detectable morphological changes and alterations in the biomechanics of HeLa cells which results in slower migration rates [15, 19], proliferative blockage, and, depending on the dose/exposure time, genomic instability and cytotoxic effects (Figure 1(d)) [7, 4244]. In this study, HeLa cells exposed to nanotubes display an elongated morphology (Figure 1(c)), abnormal mitotic figures (Figure 1(d)), and aberrant cell cycles (Figure 1(e)) where we can see an increased S and/or G2 phases, depending on the incubation dose/times. Confocal microscopy examination of MWCNT-treated cell cultures confirmed indicative signs of the biomechanical and disruptive effects of these nanotubes on HeLa cells, including (i) cell retraction, (ii) membrane blebbing, (iii) nuclear DNA compaction, and (iv) the presence of micronuclei, as well as other previously described cytoskeletal changes including disorganized microtubular patterns or a reactive cortical actin [14]. These morphological changes and cytotoxic effects were corroborated by flow cytometry (Figure 1(e)), showing a patent blockage in the S phase of the cell cycle, suggesting MWCNT interference with DNA replication.

3.2. Silica Particles

Silica particles are traditionally considered to be quite biocompatible and have been used as a therapy delivery system due to their interesting physico-chemical properties [45]. Figure 2 compilates the characteristics of these particles and several aspects of their relationship with the HeLa cells used in this study. These particles of ca. 500 nm diameter size, when functionalized with serum proteins, are receptor-mediated endocytosed. Figure 2(b) (B) shows the trajectory of these particles inside HeLa cells: particles are rapidly internalized by HeLa cells after overnight exposure. In the endo-lysosomal route, the silica particle biocorona proteins are degraded by the local lysosomal proteases. Protein-stripped silica particles are exocytosed from these cells a few hours after engulfment (see Figure 2(c)) [33]. These exocytosed silica particles can be reendocytosed after adsorbing other proteins from the surrounding culture medium on their surfaces as part of the biocorona. Previous studies demonstrate a constant concentration of approximately 30% of the total particles in the culture outside the cells [32]. As shown in Figure 2(d), silica particles are highly biocompatible at 50 μg/ml, and no significant changes in the morphology of the cells after 72 h of exposure were appreciated.

3.3. CNT-Coated Silica Particles

Carbon nanotubes can be used to coat silica particles to trigger the lysosomal exit imitating viral escape mechanisms [33, 46]. Figure 3 shows a summary of the results obtained after the exposure of HeLa cells to silica particles coated with MWCNTs. Since the carbon nanotubes of the coating are functionalized with serum proteins, nanotube-coated silica particles also enter cells via endocytosis (Figure 3(c), A). Once inside the endo-lysosome, the local proteases degrade the coating proteins, stripping the carbon nanotubes that then interact with the lysosomal membrane (Figure 3(c), B), tearing the vesicle apart and escaping into the cytosol [33]. These CNT-coated silica particles do not trigger detectable cytotoxicity either (Figure 3(d)) at a final concentration of 50 μg/ml [33, 46].

3.4. Graphene Oxide (GO) Flakes

Graphene oxide is a nanomaterial that, up to date, has been reported to be quite biocompatible in different systems in vitro and in vivo. The GO composition, the flat morphology, and the oxidation of the structure result in a very biocompatible element. Oxidised graphene allotropes have been shown to be degradable by lysosomal enzymes, being much more biocompatible than the nonoxidised counterpart nanostructures [4750]. Oxidation produces small enzymatic attack points on the graphene layers that favour degradation by the lysosomal enzymes. Figure 4 shows a summary of the intracellular entry and trajectory of GO in HeLa cells. GO produces little detectable morphological or biomechanical changes at the concentration of 50 μg/ml. Figure 4(b) shows a TEM micrograph of one of the GO sheets used in this study. As with carbon nanotubes, GO is functionalized by serum proteins adsorbed on the surface. This protein corona triggers receptor-mediated cellular entry. Unlike for carbon nanotubes, no interaction phenomena of GO with intracellular filaments such as DNA, microtubules, or actin are observed or reported so far (Figure 4(c)).

3.5. Liposomes

Liposomes are widely used as delivery systems to transfer drugs, proteins, or nucleic acids into target cells. These nanovesicles made up of a lipid bilayer can encapsulate different types of therapies into an inner aqueous phase or lipid bilayer and are considered, in general, very biocompatible nanostructures [5153]. To improve the carrier efficiency, it is necessary to understand the mechanism of uptake into cells and the release of the therapy in the cytoplasm of the target cell, and both depend on the composition of the lipocarrier. In our study, liposomes are functionalized in 30% serum, just like the other nanomaterials. These particular types of commercial cationic liposomes (see Materials and Methods) are captured by endocytosis, after interacting with the cell surface receptors (Figure 5(a)). As a general rule, this process is strongly influenced by the nature and density of the charge of the liposomes. Figure 5 depicts some characteristic data of these liposomes and their interaction with HeLa cells. Cultures were incubated with the liposomes resuspended in MEM medium for 72 h at 37°C. Figure 5(b) (boxes) shows a few DiI-labelled cationic liposomes inside HeLa cells. This particular type of liposomes did not trigger any observable morphological changes in HeLa cells. Neither changes were observed in the cell cycle or viability of HeLa cells after 72 h incubation with these nanomaterials (Figures 5(d) and 5(f)).

3.6. TiO2 Nanoparticles

Titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles are some of the most commonly manufactured nanomaterials that are extensively used as components of paints, cosmetics, food, and many other consumer products [1, 54]. Due to their physical and chemical properties, traditionally, TiO2 nanoparticles have been considered as a low-toxicity particles; in fact, they are often used as negative controls in several studies [55]. However, there are increasing evidences in in vitro studies suggesting that they can induce oxidative stress and genotoxicity upon UVA exposure [56]. In our standard assay, HeLa cells exposed to high doses (50 μg/ml) of TiO2 nanoparticles display no observable effects [57]. Figure 6 shows a summary of the findings in HeLa cells exposed to serum-functionalized TiO2. Confocal microscopy images of HeLa cells show a normal distribution of microtubules without any evidence of alteration in cell morphology (Figure 6(b)). Neither were there detected abnormalities in the cell cycle nor increased cell death after exposure to these particles, visible in vesicles in the cellular cytoplasm 72 h after exposure [5760]. Furthermore, some TiO2 nanoparticle aggregates were observed in the centrosomal region of the cells, as previously reported [61]. Interestingly, these nanoparticles can remain encapsulated in membranes for long periods of time (24-48 h) without any evidence of their exocytosis [60]. In general, most studies carried out in HeLa support the hypothesis that TiO2 nanoparticles are highly biocompatible under standard culture conditions.

3.7. ZnO Nanoparticles and Nanowires

HeLa cells that are subjected to treatment with ZnO display a very acute phenotype of cytotoxicity due to the dissolution of the ZnO nanoparticles inside the lysosomes [57, 6264]. Cells need very small amounts of zinc, and that is why they have exquisite membrane systems to control the entrance of films into the cytoplasm. When ZnO nanoparticles are incubated in medium containing serum proteins, they acquire a biocorona that the cell recognizes through its membrane receptors triggering receptor-mediated endocytosis. Once in the endosome, the pH of these vesicles decrease and ZnO nanoparticles dissolve, releasing massive amounts of zinc ions in the vesicle that invade the cell cytoplasm. Within the cellular cytoplasm, there is a series of proteins that captures zinc transiently functioning as an intracellular buffering system (Figure 7(a)). Two of these proteins are actin and tubulin. The microtubules, built of nanotubes of tubulin units, are transformed into sharp sheets of tubulin upon zinc incorporation in their structure [57]. This causes the hardening and thickening of the microtubules that behave like “daggers” perforating the cell membrane causing immediate cell necrosis. This effect can be seen in the immunofluorescence image from Figure 7(d) (A).

ZnO:Co2+ nanowires caused very similar effect to ZnO nanoparticles despite the different morphology and composition. These nanomaterials functionalized with serum proteins interact with membrane receptors, trigger endocytosis, and finally, dissolve in the lysosomes virtually identical to ZnO nanoparticles [57, 65]. As observed for the ZnO nanoparticles, these nanowires produced changes in the microtubule and actin cytoskeletons (Figure 7(a)), stabilizing both cytoskeletal polymers and producing necrotic changes derived from the perforation of the cell membrane by the microtubules (Figure 7(d), B).

4. Conclusions

Our work shows how the toxicological effects of nanomaterials can result from the morphology of the nanomaterials and/or their composition. In this review, we report several cases that illustrate these behaviours. In the case of carbon nanotubes and GO, it is the morphology rather than the composition factor that triggers the cytotoxic response in the HeLa cells. However, this is not a universal dogma, for ZnO-based nanomaterials, morphology is less important than chemistry, and it is its composition and their chemical properties which trigger the cytotoxic effect in that case. Also, this work demonstrates how nanomaterials can produce unpredictable consequences in human HeLa cells; even if we can know the composition and morphology of nanomaterials, a complete cytotoxic study should be performed in each case.

Our results show that although all employed nanomaterials interact with cells by receptor-mediated endocytosis, the route that they follow once inside the cell is not the same. As we can see, our study reinforces the idea that it is necessary to develop specific tests for each nanomaterial, since it is not possible to anticipate the cytotoxic effects and/or the interaction with cells and tissues.

This exhaustive study constitutes an extraordinary tool for the modelling of more complex structures, incorporating materials endowed with magnetic, optical, or catalytic functionalities. In fact, the carbon nanotubes provide a high surface, which makes easier the adsorption of many different ligands, together with other porous or hollow materials like mesoporous SiO2 or liposomes. Also, we can take advantage of other materials that are innocuous to these cells like TiO2 in order to improve the biostability. This can increase the applications of these nanomaterials as drug delivery systems, therapy or diagnostic.

Nanomedicine and in particular the study of these interactions between nanomaterials and biological systems is a field in constant development and evolution that changes every day making the designs and the possibilities almost endless.

Data Availability

All data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article and can be provided by the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Funding

CRL is funded by FJCI-2015-25306; LGL is funded by CD17/00105; LVF is funded by FPU 15/06881.

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Spanish MINECO and European FEDER under Project ref. PI16/00496, the NanoBioApp Network Ref. MINECO-17-MAT2016-81955-REDT. We thank IDIVAL for INNVAL15/16, INNVAL 17/11, PREVAL 16/03, 16/02, and the Raman4clinics BMBS COST Actions BM1401 and TD1402. We also thank Débora Muñoz for her technical assistance. We are grateful to the Nikon A1R Laser Microscopy Unit and the TEM Unit of the IDIVAL Institute.

References

  1. A. Weir, P. Westerhoff, L. Fabricius, K. Hristovski, and N. von Goetz, “Titanium dioxide nanoparticles in food and personal care products,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 2242–2250, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. S. W. P. Wijnhoven, W. J. G. M. Peijnenburg, C. A. Herberts et al., “Nano-silver: a review of available data and knowledge gaps in human and environmental risk assessment,” Nanotoxicology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 109–138, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. A. Ivask, K. Juganson, O. Bondarenko et al., “Mechanisms of toxic action of Ag, ZnO and CuO nanoparticles to selected ecotoxicological test organisms and mammalian cells in vitro: a comparative review,” Nanotoxicology, vol. 8, supplement 1, pp. 57–71, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. G. Brumfiel, “Consumer products leap aboard the nano bandwagon,” Nature, vol. 440, no. 7082, p. 262, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. E. Asmatulu, J. Twomey, and M. Overcash, “Life cycle and nano-products: end-of-life assessment,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 720, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. G. Pulido-Reyes, F. Leganes, F. Fernández-Piñas, and R. Rosal, “Bio-nano interface and environment: a critical review,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 3181–3193, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. L. Garcia-Hevia, R. Valiente, J. Gonzalez, J. Fernandez-Luna, J. Villegas, and M. Fanarraga, “Anti-cancer cytotoxic effects of multiwalled carbon nanotubes,” Current Pharmaceutical Design, vol. 21, no. 15, pp. 1920–1929, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. J. C. Villegas, L. Álvarez-Montes, L. Rodríguez-Fernández, J. González, R. Valiente, and M. L. Fanarraga, “Multiwalled carbon nanotubes hinder microglia function interfering with cell migration and phagocytosis,” Advanced Healthcare Materials, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 424–432, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. L. Rodríguez-Fernández, R. Valiente, J. González, J. C. Villegas, and M. L. Fanarraga, “Multiwalled carbon nanotubes display microtubule biomimetic properties in vivo, enhancing microtubule assembly and stabilization,” ACS Nano, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 6614–6625, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. C. Bussy, K. T. Al-Jamal, J. Boczkowski et al., “Microglia determine brain region-specific neurotoxic responses to chemically functionalized carbon nanotubes,” ACS Nano, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 7815–7830, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. H. J. Forman and M. Torres, “Reactive oxygen species and cell signaling: respiratory burst in macrophage signaling,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 166, supplement_1, pp. S4–S8, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. S. Diment and P. Stahl, “Macrophage endosomes contain proteases which degrade endocytosed protein ligands,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 260, no. 28, pp. 15311–15317, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  13. M. L. di Giorgio, S. Di Bucchianico, A. M. Ragnelli, P. Aimola, S. Santucci, and A. Poma, “Effects of single and multi walled carbon nanotubes on macrophages: cyto and genotoxicity and electron microscopy,” Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, vol. 722, no. 1, pp. 20–31, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. L. García-Hevia, J. C. Villegas, F. Fernández et al., “Multiwalled carbon nanotubes inhibit tumor progression in a mouse model,” Advanced Healthcare Materials, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1080–1087, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. L. García-Hevia, R. Valiente, J. L. Fernández-Luna et al., “Inhibition of cancer cell migration by multiwalled carbon nanotubes,” Advanced Healthcare Materials, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 1640–1644, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. J. Wang, P. Sun, Y. Bao, J. Liu, and L. An, “Cytotoxicity of single-walled carbon nanotubes on PC12 cells,” Toxicology in Vitro, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 242–250, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. E. S. Patchin, D. S. Anderson, R. M. Silva et al., “Size-dependent deposition, translocation, and microglial activation of inhaled silver nanoparticles in the rodent nose and brain,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 124, no. 12, pp. 1870–1875, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. L. Belyanskaya, S. Weigel, C. Hirsch, U. Tobler, H. F. Krug, and P. Wick, “Effects of carbon nanotubes on primary neurons and glial cells,” Neurotoxicology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 702–711, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. C. Dong, R. Eldawud, L. M. Sargent et al., “Carbon nanotube uptake changes the biomechanical properties of human lung epithelial cells in a time-dependent manner,” Journal of Materials Chemistry B, vol. 3, no. 19, pp. 3983–3992, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. S. K. Manna, S. Sarkar, J. Barr et al., “Single-walled carbon nanotube induces oxidative stress and activates nuclear transcription factor-κB in human keratinocytes,” Nano Letters, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1676–1684, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. L. García-Hevia, F. Fernández, C. Grávalos, A. García, J. C. Villegas, and M. L. Fanarraga, “Nanotube interactions with microtubules: implications for cancer medicine,” Nanomedicine, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 1581–1588, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. B. D. Holt, P. A. Short, A. D. Rape, Y. L. Wang, M. F. Islam, and K. N. Dahl, “Carbon nanotubes reorganize actin structures in cells and ex vivo,” ACS Nano, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 4872–4878, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. A. Seifalian, Madani, Shabani, and M. Dwek, “Conjugation of quantum dots on carbon nanotubes for medical diagnosis and treatment,” International Journal of Nanomedicine, vol. 8, no. 1, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. H. Ali-Boucetta, K. T. Al-Jamal, and K. Kostarelos, “Cytotoxic assessment of carbon nanotube interaction with cell cultures,” Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 726, pp. 299–312, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. X. Li, Y. Peng, and X. Qu, “Carbon nanotubes selective destabilization of duplex and triplex DNA and inducing B-A transition in solution,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 34, no. 13, pp. 3670–3676, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. J. Cveticanin, G. Joksic, A. Leskovac, S. Petrovic, A. V. Sobot, and O. Neskovic, “Using carbon nanotubes to induce micronuclei and double strand breaks of the DNA in human cells,” Nanotechnology, vol. 21, no. 1, article 015102, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. F. Pampaloni and E. L. Florin, “Microtubule architecture: inspiration for novel carbon nanotube-based biomimetic materials,” Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 302–310, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. J. R. Masters, “HeLa cells 50 years on: the good, the bad and the ugly,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 315–319, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. J. J. M. Landry, P. T. Pyl, T. Rausch et al., “The genomic and transcriptomic landscape of a HeLa cell line,” G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 1213–1224, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. D. Mittelman and J. H. Wilson, “The fractured genome of HeLa cells,” Genome Biology, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 111, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. S. Sato, A. Rancourt, Y. Sato, and M. S. Satoh, “Single-cell lineage tracking analysis reveals that an established cell line comprises putative cancer stem cells and their heterogeneous progeny,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, article 23328, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. E. González-Domínguez, N. Iturrioz-Rodríguez, E. Padín-González et al., “Carbon nanotubes gathered onto silica particles lose their biomimetic properties with the cytoskeleton becoming biocompatible,” International Journal of Nanomedicine, vol. 12, pp. 6317–6328, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. N. Iturrioz-Rodríguez, E. González-Domínguez, E. González-Lavado et al., “A biomimetic escape strategy for cytoplasm invasion by synthetic particles,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition, vol. 56, no. 44, pp. 13736–13740, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. C. Renero-Lecuna, R. Martin-Rodriguez, J. A. Gonzalez et al., “Photoluminescence in ZnO:Co2+ (0.01%–5%) nanoparticles, nanowires, thin films, and single crystals as a function of pressure and temperature: exploring electron–phonon interactions,” Chemistry of Materials, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1100–1107, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. L. E. Greene, B. D. Yuhas, M. Law, D. Zitoun, and P. Yang, “Solution-grown zinc oxide nanowires,” Inorganic Chemistry, vol. 45, no. 19, pp. 7535–7543, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. L. E. Greene, M. Law, J. Goldberger et al., “Low-temperature wafer-scale production of ZnO nanowire arrays,” Angewandte Chemie (International Ed. in English), vol. 42, no. 26, pp. 3031–3034, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. M. F. L. de Volder, S. H. Tawfick, R. H. Baughman, and A. J. Hart, “Carbon nanotubes: present and future commercial applications,” Science, vol. 339, no. 6119, pp. 535–539, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. N. W. Shi Kam, T. C. Jessop, P. A. Wender, and H. Dai, “Nanotube molecular transporters: internalization of carbon nanotube-protein conjugates into mammalian cells,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 126, no. 22, pp. 6850-6851, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. P. N. Yaron, B. D. Holt, P. A. Short, M. Lösche, M. F. Islam, and K. Dahl, “Single wall carbon nanotubes enter cells by endocytosis and not membrane penetration,” Journal of Nanobiotechnology, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 45, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. C. Iancu, L. Mocan, C. Bele et al., “Enhanced laser thermal ablation for the in vitro treatment of liver cancer by specific delivery of multiwalled carbon nanotubes functionalised with human serum albumin,” International Journal of Nanomedicine, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 129–141, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. C. Z. Dinu, S. S. Bale, G. Zhu, and J. S. Dordick, “Tubulin encapsulation of carbon nanotubes into functional hybrid assemblies,” Small, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 310–315, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. R. F. Hamilton, Z. Wu, S. Mitra, P. K. Shaw, and A. Holian, “Effect of MWCNT size, carboxylation, and purification on in vitro and in vivo toxicity, inflammation and lung pathology,” Particle and Fibre Toxicology, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 57, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. J. Muller, I. Decordier, P. H. Hoet et al., “Clastogenic and aneugenic effects of multi-wall carbon nanotubes in epithelial cells,” Carcinogenesis, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 427–433, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. L. Ding, J. Stilwell, T. Zhang et al., “Molecular characterization of the cytotoxic mechanism of multiwall carbon nanotubes and nano-onions on human skin fibroblast,” Nano Letters, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 2448–2464, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. J. G. Croissant, Y. Fatieiev, A. Almalik, and N. M. Khashab, “Mesoporous silica and organosilica nanoparticles : physical chemistry , biosafety, delivery strategies, and biomedical applications,” Advanced Healthcare Materials, vol. 7, no. 4, article 1700831, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. Q. Mu, D. L. Broughton, and B. Yan, “Endosomal leakage and nuclear translocation of multiwalled carbon nanotubes: developing a model for cell uptake,” Nano Letters, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 4370–4375, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. G. P. Kotchey, Y. Zhao, V. E. Kagan, and A. Star, “Peroxidase-mediated biodegradation of carbon nanotubes in vitro and in vivo,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 65, no. 15, pp. 1921–1932, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. M. Zhang, M. Yang, C. Bussy, S. Iijima, K. Kostarelos, and M. Yudasaka, “Biodegradation of carbon nanohorns in macrophage cells,” Nanoscale, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 2834–2840, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. A. R. Sureshbabu, R. Kurapati, J. Russier et al., “Degradation-by-design: surface modification with functional substrates that enhance the enzymatic degradation of carbon nanotubes,” Biomaterials, vol. 72, pp. 20–28, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. C. Bussy, C. Hadad, M. Prato, A. Bianco, and K. Kostarelos, “Intracellular degradation of chemically functionalized carbon nanotubes using a long-term primary microglial culture model,” Nanoscale, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 590–601, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. M. M. Migliore, T. K. Vyas, R. B. Campbell, M. M. Amiji, and B. L. Waszczak, “Brain delivery of proteins by the intranasal route of administration: a comparison of cationic liposomes versus aqueous solution formulations,” Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 1745–1761, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. M. Przybylo, D. Glogocka, J. W. Dobrucki et al., “The cellular internalization of liposome encapsulated protoporphyrin IX by HeLa cells,” European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 85, pp. 39–46, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. B. Chatin, M. Mével, J. Devallière et al., “Liposome-based formulation for intracellular delivery of functional proteins,” Molecular Therapy - Nucleic Acids, vol. 4, article e244, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. X.-X. Chen, B. Cheng, Y. X. Yang et al., “Characterization and preliminary toxicity assay of nano-titanium dioxide additive in sugar-coated chewing gum,” Small, vol. 9, no. 9-10, pp. 1765–1774, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. K. Donaldson and C. A. Poland, “Respiratory system,” in Adverse Effects of Engineered Nanomaterials, pp. 121–137, Elsevier, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. R. K. Shukla, V. Sharma, A. K. Pandey, S. Singh, S. Sultana, and A. Dhawan, “ROS-mediated genotoxicity induced by titanium dioxide nanoparticles in human epidermal cells,” Toxicology in Vitro, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 231–241, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. L. García-Hevia, R. Valiente, R. Martín-Rodríguez et al., “Nano-ZnO leads to tubulin macrotube assembly and actin bundling, triggering cytoskeletal catastrophe and cell necrosis,” Nanoscale, vol. 8, no. 21, pp. 10963–10973, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. R. Cai, K. Hashimoto, K. Itoh, Y. Kubota, and A. Fujishima, “Photokilling of malignant cells with ultrafine TiO2 powder,” Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 1268–1273, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. Y. Xu, M. T. Wei, H. D. Ou-Yang et al., “Exposure to TiO2 nanoparticles increases Staphylococcus aureus infection of HeLa cells,” Journal of Nanobiotechnology, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 34, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. Z. Li, L. Mi, P.-N. Wang, and J.-Y. Chen, “Study on the visible-light-induced photokilling effect of nitrogen-doped TiO2 nanoparticles on cancer cells,” Nanoscale Research Letters, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 356, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. A. K. Jain, V. A. Senapati, D. Singh, K. Dubey, R. Maurya, and A. K. Pandey, “Impact of anatase titanium dioxide nanoparticles on mutagenic and genotoxic response in Chinese hamster lung fibroblast cells (V-79): the role of cellular uptake,” Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol. 105, pp. 127–139, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. I. A. Mudunkotuwa, T. Rupasinghe, C.-M. Wu, and V. H. Grassian, “Dissolution of ZnO nanoparticles at circumneutral pH: a study of size effects in the presence and absence of citric acid,” Langmuir, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 396–403, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. A. Sasidharan, P. Chandran, D. Menon, S. Raman, S. Nair, and M. Koyakutty, “Rapid dissolution of ZnO nanocrystals in acidic cancer microenvironment leading to preferential apoptosis,” Nanoscale, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 3657–3669, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. J. Zhou, N. S. Xu, and Z. L. Wang, “Dissolving behavior and stability of ZnO wires in biofluids: a study on biodegradability and biocompatibility of ZnO nanostructures,” Advanced Materials, vol. 18, no. 18, pp. 2432–2435, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. K. H. Müller, J. Kulkarni, M. Motskin et al., “pH-dependent toxicity of high aspect ratio ZnO nanowires in macrophages due to intracellular dissolution,” ACS Nano, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 6767–6779, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 Carlos Renero-Lecuna et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

2148 Views | 683 Downloads | 1 Citation
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.