Conscious Changes of Carbon Nanotubes Cytotoxicity by Manipulation with Selected Nanofactors

Abstract

We discuss eight major challenges in the field of carbon nanomaterial toxicity. Generally, we pick up some of them, and the most important challenge is searching of the qualitative relationships between nanofactors and cytotoxicity. This is important since it can provide the possibility of conscious changes of carbon nanotubes cytotoxicity by manipulation with selected nanofactors. Therefore, the toxicity of a series of gradually oxidized carbon nanotubes is studied. We show, for the first time, that toxicity of those materials depends strongly on the ratio of acidic to basic group concentration—the higher is this ratio value, the more toxic are nanotubes. In this way, by changing this ratio, one can change toxicity. This correlation is more evident after ultrasonication, and it is connected with the accessibility of charged groups for interactions with proteins. Toxicity also depends on the ability of nanotubes for protein adsorption. We suggest that the changes in the protein composition of medium, especially lack of important growth factors, inhibit cell proliferation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12010-015-1607-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PDLLA honeycomb-like scaffolds with a high loading of superhydrophilic graphene/multi-walled carbon nanotubes promote osteoblast in vitro functions and guided in vivo bone regeneration

“…3b), and also identified by Leal et al [14]. Several papers have disagreed about the use of MWCNT based materials as scaffolds for cell growth [28][29][30][31][32] due to their superhydrophobicity and, as some have claimed, they may be cytotoxic (possibly due to the incomplete reaction of toxic catalysts used during their synthesis) [33][34][35][36][37][38]. Conversely, our results show and continue to support studies which highlight the positive use of MWCNT in medicine.…”

Electrical percolation in extrinsically conducting, poly(ε-decalactone) composite neural interface materials

“…To avail of their outstanding biocompatibility, non-conducting elastomeric biomaterials can be used as matrices for conducting fillers to produce both conducting and biocompatible composite coatings, which negate the negative effects of the fillers on cell viability and proliferation 8 . So far, several reports have described the design of composite materials of polyurethane and carbon nanotubes 9 , polydimethylsiloxane and carbon nanotubes 10 , polylactide and polyaniline 11 , or more sophisticated, three-composite materials made of carbon nanotubes, polypyrrole and poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate polyacrylamide 12 .…”

Cytotoxic or Not? Disclosing the Toxic Nature of Carbonaceous Nanomaterials through Nano–Bio Interactions

“…To date, the investigation of the cytotoxic properties of CNMs has been confounding and inconclusive since opposing results have been reported throughout the literature, even for closely related materials. Divergent outcomes might be related to, for example, the subtle differences in the physicochemical properties or structure of carbon nanomaterials, the types of cells engaged in the tests, methods of particles dispersion, and used cytotoxicity tests [13,19]. Despite progress in analytical techniques and protocols, assessing the cytotoxicity of carbon nanomaterials still poses considerable challenges.…”

“…One of the major concerns about CNM toxicity determination is the lack of standards referring to the dose, exposure time, and measurable parameters of cytotoxicity. The development of reliable toxicity-screening tools is of crucial importance for the near future [19].…”