Challenges on the toxicological predictions of engineered nanoparticles

Ribeiro, Ana R.; Leite, Paulo Emílio Corrêa; Falagan-Lotsch, Priscila; Benetti, Federico; Micheletti, Christian; Budtz, Hans Christian; Jacobsen, Nicklas Raun; Lisboa‐Filho, Paulo Noronha; Rocha, L. A.; Kühnel, Dana; Hristozov, Danail; Granjeiro, José Mauro

doi:10.1016/j.impact.2017.07.006

Cited by 54 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 132 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This can be developed by the implementation of specific standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the testing of NPs. These procedures, based on principles of good laboratory practice (GLP), should be supported by researchers and scientists in order to analyze high amounts of data [ 172 ]. Future challenges will involve the creation of flexible and reliable databases in which NPs can be classified according to the results deriving from toxicological investigations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposure to Inorganic Nanoparticles: Routes of Entry, Immune Response, Biodistribution and In Vitro/In Vivo Toxicity Evaluation

Matteis

2017

Toxics

247

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of different kinds of nanoparticles, showing different physico-chemical properties, has fostered their large use in many fields, including medicine. As a consequence, inorganic nanoparticles (e.g., metals or semiconductors), have raised issues about their potential toxicity. The scientific community is investigating the toxicity mechanisms of these materials, in vitro and in vivo, in order to provide accurate references concerning their use. This review will give the readers a thorough exploration on the entry mechanisms of inorganic nanoparticles in the human body, such as titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2NPs), silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SiO2NPs), zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnONPs), silver nanoparticles (AgNPs), gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) and quantum dots (QDsNPs). In addition, biodistribution, the current trends and novelties of in vitro and in vivo toxicology studies will be discussed, with a particular focus on immune response.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposure to Inorganic Nanoparticles: Routes of Entry, Immune Response, Biodistribution and In Vitro/In Vivo Toxicity Evaluation

Matteis

2017

Toxics

247

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After 24 h, the pre-incubation of the cells and the release time of drug agents, the nanoparticles in the RPMI-1640 media were centrifuged and the cell media was changed for the nanoparticle-supernatant. This step is necessary to avoid nanoparticle sedimentation on tumor cells [ 46 ]. After 6/24 h incubation, the media were changed to 0.2 mL fresh, serum-free RPMI-1640 and 20 μL/well MTT reagent solution (5 mg MTT/mL) were added.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poly(3-Hydroxybutyrate)-Based Nanoparticles for Sorafenib and Doxorubicin Anticancer Drug Delivery

Babos

Rydz

Kawalec

et al. 2020

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dual drug-loaded nanotherapeutics can play an important role against the drug resistance and side effects of the single drugs. Doxorubicin and sorafenib were efficiently co-encapsulated by tailor-made poly([R,S]-3-hydroxybutyrate) (PHB) using an emulsion–solvent evaporation method. Subsequent poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) conjugation onto nanoparticles was applied to make the nanocarriers stealth and to improve their drug release characteristics. Monodisperse PHB–sorafenib–doxorubicin nanoparticles had an average size of 199.3 nm, which was increased to 250.5 nm after PEGylation. The nanoparticle yield and encapsulation efficiencies of drugs decreased slightly in consequence of PEG conjugation. The drug release of the doxorubicin was beneficial, since it was liberated faster in a tumor-specific acidic environment than in blood plasma. The PEG attachment decelerated the release of both the doxorubicin and the sorafenib, however, the release of the latter drug remained still significantly faster with increased initial burst compared to doxorubicin. Nevertheless, the PEG–PHB copolymer showed more beneficial drug release kinetics in vitro in comparison with our recently developed PEGylated poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanoparticles loaded with the same drugs.

show abstract

“…The precise properties of nanoparticles and their toxicity details are poorly understood. Thus, a more wide-ranging and comprehensive characterization, including size distribution, shape, surface area, surface chemistry, crystallinity, porosity, agglomeration state, surface charge, solubility, etc., is suggested for nanomaterials in order to determine the perfect connection between their physicochemical properties and the biological effects they produce [37]. However, due to limited facilities in lab, scientists are bound to utilize the techniques available to them.…”

Section: Challenges In Characterizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges for Assessing Toxicity of Nanomaterials

Gupta¹,

Kumar²,

Kumar³

2020

Biochemical Toxicology - Heavy Metals and Nanomaterials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the development of nano-world, nanotechnology provides enormous opportunities in daily routine products and further future sustainable innovations. The nanotechnology extends its benefits to various fields such as engineering, medical, biological, environmental, and communication. However, the exponential growth of nanomaterials production would lead to severe complications related to their hazardous effects to the human health and environment. Moreover, negative impact of nanomaterials toxicity on human health is one of the significant issues on exhausting nano-products. The most vulnerable situation is associated with the use of nanomaterials in the biomedical application. The several efforts have been ongoing to study the nanotoxicity and its interaction with the biomolecules. Nevertheless, it is hard to assess and validate the nanotoxicity in a biological system. This chapter aims to study the challenges in determining the toxicity of nanomaterials. The toxicity assessment and hurdles in determining the impact on biological systems are epoch making. In-vitro, in-vivo, and in-silico studies are summarized in this chapter in assessing the toxicity of engineered nanomaterials. The different approaches of toxicity assessment have their difficulties faced by researchers while characterizing nanomaterials in powder form, solution-based, and interacting with biological systems. The assessment tools and characterization techniques play a vital role in overcoming the challenges, while the cytotoxic assays involve nanoparticle shape, morphology, and size consideration.

show abstract

Challenges on the toxicological predictions of engineered nanoparticles

Cited by 54 publications

References 132 publications

Exposure to Inorganic Nanoparticles: Routes of Entry, Immune Response, Biodistribution and In Vitro/In Vivo Toxicity Evaluation

Exposure to Inorganic Nanoparticles: Routes of Entry, Immune Response, Biodistribution and In Vitro/In Vivo Toxicity Evaluation

Poly(3-Hydroxybutyrate)-Based Nanoparticles for Sorafenib and Doxorubicin Anticancer Drug Delivery

Challenges for Assessing Toxicity of Nanomaterials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About