Why the Immune System Should Be Concerned by Nanomaterials?

Pallardy, Marc; Turbica, Isabelle; Biola-Vidamment, Armelle

doi:10.3389/fimmu.2017.00544

Cited by 61 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gallo and Gallucci, 2013, first alluded to the idea of NP‐associated molecular patterns (NAMPs) as studies demonstrated that NPs could be recognized by immune cells, a concept that continues to be supported by a growing body of evidence . As previously mentioned in this review, NPs have been shown to directly bind SRs on macrophages, both class A and class B, inducing phagocytosis and/or NLRP3 inflammasome activation.…”

Section: Nps As Molecular Patternsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The variability of entry route is thought to be dependent on the particles’ physicochemical characteristics, such as size and agglomeration state . Various particle coatings can also influence mechanism of NP uptake, and can be both intentionally applied prior to administration or acquired as a biocorona through molecular interactions with various proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids within the body . SiO 2 NPs coated with different functional groups, for example, were all endocytosed to varying degrees following the binding of SRs …”

Section: Nps and The Intestinal Barriermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been previously well described that the reactivities of different NPs are influenced by their chemical composition. This is dependent on different classes of NPs—such as transition metal oxides, soluble metal oxides, cationic/anionic liposomes, and others— as well as size, added particle coatings, and functional groups, crystalline vs. amorphous structure, and acquired biocoronas . Recent studies are shedding more light on exactly how these different chemical compositions interact with cells and subcellular components, with evidence suggesting that responses may not only be NP‐specific, but also cell‐type specific …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Nanoparticles and danger signals: Oral delivery vehicles as potential disruptors of intestinal barrier homeostasis

Vita

Royse

Pullen

2019

Journal of Leukocyte Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gut immune system homeostasis involves diverse structural interactions among resident microbiota, the protective mucus layer, and a variety of cells (intestinal epithelial, lymphoid, and myeloid). Due to the substantial surface area in direct contact with an "external" environment and the diversity of xenobiotic, abiotic, and self-interactions coordinating to maintain gut homeostasis, there is enhanced potential for the generation of endogenous danger signals when this balance is lost. Here, we focus on the potential generation and reception of damage in the gut resulting from exposure to nanoparticles (NPs), common food and drug additives. Specifically, we describe recent evidence in the literature showing that certain NPs are potential generators of damage-associated molecular patterns, as well as potential immune-stimulating molecular patterns themselves. K E Y W O R D SATP, DAMP, mtDNA, NAMP, Nanoparticles, NLRP3Over the past decade, the commercial use of NPs by the food and biomedical industries has seen immense growth. The small, nanoscale size of NPs confers unique physicochemical properties that allow them to be effective oral delivery mechanisms for pharmaceuticals, food flavors, nutrient additives, and more. The accepted size range of NPs is not straightforward, varying across different biomedical and engineering disciplines and government agencies. 10,11 Although certain sources indicate that a typical NP is 1-100 nm in three dimensions, other sources consider accepted dimensions (one or more) for NPs to include <200 nm, 12 <500 nm, 13 or as large as <1000 nm. 14,15 The ASTM International definition provides for either two or three dimensions at the nanoscale, 16 whereas the ISO definition indicates nanoscale in three dimensions. 17 In an officially issued

show abstract

Section: Nps As Molecular Patternsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Nps and The Intestinal Barriermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nanoparticles and danger signals: Oral delivery vehicles as potential disruptors of intestinal barrier homeostasis

Vita

Royse

Pullen

2019

Journal of Leukocyte Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The "danger signals" would act on DCs, in aseptic conditions, in a similar manner to the microbial molecular patterns. Therefore, the question to be addressed is whether engineered NP could act as danger signals, as previously suggested for ultrafine or diesel exhaust particles [14] and could be considered as NAMPs (nanoparticle-associated molecular patterns) [15][16][17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Address the Adjuvant Effects of Nanoparticles on the Immune System

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the nanotechnology market expands and the prevalence of allergic diseases keeps increasing, the knowledge gap on the capacity of nanomaterials to cause or exacerbate allergic outcomes needs more than ever to be filled. Engineered nanoparticles (NP) could have an adjuvant effect on the immune system as previously demonstrated for particulate air pollution. This effect would be the consequence of the recognition of NP as immune danger signals by dendritic cells (DCs). The aim of this work was to set up an in vitro method to functionally assess this effect using amorphous silica NP as a prototype. Most studies in this field are restricted to the evaluation of DCs maturation, generally of murine origin, through a limited phenotypic analysis. As it is essential to also consider the functional consequences of NP-induced DC altered phenotype on T-cells biology, we developed an allogeneic co-culture model of human monocyte-derived DCs (MoDCs) and CD4+ T-cells. We demonstrated that DC: T-cell ratios were a critical parameter to correctly measure the influence of NP danger signals through allogeneic co-culture. Moreover, to better visualize the effect of NP while minimizing the basal proliferation inherent to the model, we recommend testing three different ratios, preferably after five days of co-culture.

show abstract

“…In addition to these factors, the exposure route, surface chemistry and steric effects of their coating impact biodistribution, and determine the level of GNPs' toxicity [20][21][22][23][24]. When used as nanomedicine, GNPs' immunomodulatory properties are often associated with GNPs' uptake by antigen-presenting cells (e.g., macrophages, dendritic cells) and neutrophils, altering their function and T-cell polarisation capacity [25]; therefore, the study of GNPs' interactions with immune cells is undoubtedly of crucial interest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Stabilisation Agents on the Immunomodulatory Properties of Gold Nanoparticles Obtained by Ultrasonic Spray Pyrolysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gold nanoparticles (GNPs) have been investigated extensively as drug carriers in tumour immunotherapy in combination with photothermal therapy. For this purpose, GNPs should be stabilised in biological fluids. The goal of this study was to examine how stabilisation agents influence cytotoxicity and immune response in vitro. Spherical GNPs, 20 nm in size, were prepared by ultrasonic spray pyrolysis (USP). Three types of stabilising agents were used: sodium citrate (SC), polyvinyl-pyrrolidone (PVP), and poly-ethylene glycol (PEG). Pristine, non-stabilised GNPs were used as a control. The culture models were mouse L929 cells, B16F10 melanoma cells and human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMNCs), obtained from healthy donors. Control SC- and PEG-GNPs were non-cytotoxic at concentrations (range 1–100 µg/mL), in contrast to PVP-GNPs, which were cytotoxic at higher concentrations. Control GNPs inhibited the production of IFN-ϒ slightly, and augmented the production of IL-10 by PHA-stimulated PBMNC cultures. PEG-GNPs inhibited the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1, IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α) and Th1-related cytokines (IFN-ϒ and IL-12p70), and increased the production of Th2 cytokines (IL-4 and IL-5). SC-PEG inhibited the production of IL-8 and IL-17A. In contrast, PVP-GNPs stimulated the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, Th1 cytokines, and IL-17A, but also IL-10. When uptake of GNPs by monocytes/macrophages in PBMNC cultures was analysed, the ingestion of PEG- GNPs was significantly lower compared to SC- and PVP-GNPs. In conclusion, stabilisation agents modulate biocompatibility and immune response significantly, so their adequate choice for preparation of GNPs is an important factor when considering the use of GNPs for application in vivo.

show abstract

Why the Immune System Should Be Concerned by Nanomaterials?

Cited by 61 publications

References 63 publications

Nanoparticles and danger signals: Oral delivery vehicles as potential disruptors of intestinal barrier homeostasis

Nanoparticles and danger signals: Oral delivery vehicles as potential disruptors of intestinal barrier homeostasis

How to Address the Adjuvant Effects of Nanoparticles on the Immune System

The Effect of Stabilisation Agents on the Immunomodulatory Properties of Gold Nanoparticles Obtained by Ultrasonic Spray Pyrolysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About