In vitro genotoxicity assessment and comparison of cerium (IV) oxide micro- and nanoparticles

Abstract

Cerium (IV) oxide (CeO2), which is used as a biomaterial, has wide application in areas such as the biomedical, glass polishing, electronic, automotive, and pharmacology industries. Comparing with the literature, in this study, the genotoxic effects of cerium (IV) oxide microparticles (COMPs) and cerium (IV) oxide nanoparticles (CONPs) were investigated for the first time in human peripheral blood cultures at concentrations of 0.78, 1.56, 3.125, 6.25, 12.5, 25, and 50 ppm for 72 h under in vitro conditions. Particle sizes of COMPs and CONPs were determined using scanning electron microscopic analysis. Micronucleus and chromosome aberration tests were used to determine the genotoxicity of COMPs and CONPs. The average particle sizes of COMPs and CONPs were approximately 148.25 and 25.30 nm, respectively. It was determined that CeO2 particles in both micro and nano sizes were toxic at all concentrations compared to the negative control group (distilled water). Importantly, COMPs and CONPs were genotoxic even at the lowest concentration (0.78 ppm). Comparing particle sizes, the data indicated that COMPs were more toxic than CONPs. The results suggest that genotoxicity of COMPs and CONPs may be a function of applied concentrations and particle sizes.

Synthesis and characterization of single‐walled carbon nanotube: Cyto‐genotoxicity in Allium cepa root tips and molecular docking studies

“…Four concentrations of SWCNTs (12.5, 25, 50, and 100 μg/ml) were prepared with distilled water and dispersed for 30 min in a bath sonicator at 320 W and 35 kHz (Bandelin Sonorex Digitec DT100, Germany). These concentrations were in the range reported in previous exposure studies with A. cepa (Arslan & Akbaba, 2020; Kumari et al, 2011; Mangalampalli et al, 2018; Pakrashi et al, 2014). Allium ana–telophase test was performed according to the study of Liman et al (2021).…”

Nonspherical Metal‐Based Nanoarchitectures: Synthesis and Impact of Size, Shape, and Composition on Their Biological Activity

“…The morphology of the nanoparticles has been cited as the major factor that accounts for genotoxicity. [ 278 ] Among spherical nanoparticles (10 nm), nanoflowers (370 nm), nanorods (41 nm), nanoprisms (160 nm), and nanostars (240 nm), nanospheres and nanorods have been shown to be more genotoxic than star‐, flower‐, and prism‐shaped Au nanoparticles. [ 196 ] Cubic and octahedral CeO 2 nanoparticles have no significant toxicity, whereas rod‐shaped CeO 2 nanoparticles induce lactate dehyrogenase release and TNF‐α generation.…”

Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles (Nanoceria): Hopes in Soft Tissue Engineering

“…There are several studies in the literature presenting nanoceria as a bio-safe substance [ 39 , 40 ]; however, some in vitro and in vivo research reported levels of acute and chronic toxicity for it [ 41 , 42 , 43 ]. As an illustration, CeO 2 nanoparticles were recently reported as genotoxic substances for human peripheral blood cells at concentrations of 0.78, 1.56, 3.125, 6.25, 12.5, 25, and 50 ppm within 72 h under in vitro conditions [ 44 ].…”