2,778
Views
30
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Inflammation and (secondary) genotoxicity of Ni and NiO nanoparticles

, , , &
Pages 1060-1072 | Received 11 Nov 2018, Accepted 22 May 2019, Published online: 19 Jul 2019

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of NP characteristics; BET-area, primary particle size, size in RPMI/LHC-9 medium, and Ni-release in RPMI/LHC‐9 medium.

Figure 1. Cytotoxicity of Ni and NiO NPs following exposure of HBEC or THP1* cells for 3 or 24h. Both cell types were exposed to Ni and NiO NPs corresponding to total Ni concentration of 5, 10, 25 and 50µg/ml (1.6, 3.1, 7.8, and 15.6μg Ni/cm2) for 3h and 24h in HBEC cell culture media. The bars show mean ± SEM.

Figure 1. Cytotoxicity of Ni and NiO NPs following exposure of HBEC or THP1* cells for 3 or 24 h. Both cell types were exposed to Ni and NiO NPs corresponding to total Ni concentration of 5, 10, 25 and 50 µg/ml (1.6, 3.1, 7.8, and 15.6 μg Ni/cm2) for 3 h and 24 h in HBEC cell culture media. The bars show mean ± SEM.

Figure 2. Cytokine release following 3h or 24h exposure of THP1* cells to 50µg/ml (corresponding to total Ni concentration, 15.8μg Ni/cm2) Ni NPs, NiO NPs or SiO2 (quartz).

Figure 2. Cytokine release following 3 h or 24 h exposure of THP1* cells to 50 µg/ml (corresponding to total Ni concentration, 15.8 μg Ni/cm2) Ni NPs, NiO NPs or SiO2 (quartz).

Figure 3. Secretion of VEGF (left) or IL-1β following 18h exposure of THP1* cells to 50µg/ml (15.8μg Ni/cm2) Ni NPs, NiO NPs or SiO2 (quartz). The bars show mean ± SEM and significant differences compared to the control are marked with asterisks (* for p-value < 0.05, ** for p-value < 0.01, *** for p-value < 0.001).

Figure 3. Secretion of VEGF (left) or IL-1β following 18 h exposure of THP1* cells to 50 µg/ml (15.8 μg Ni/cm2) Ni NPs, NiO NPs or SiO2 (quartz). The bars show mean ± SEM and significant differences compared to the control are marked with asterisks (* for p-value < 0.05, ** for p-value < 0.01, *** for p-value < 0.001).

Figure 4. DNA damage caused by conditioned media. (A) Conditioned media was generated by exposing THP1* cells to 50µg/ml (15.8μg Ni/cm2) for 3 or 18h. Next, the media was removed and centrifuged in order to remove remaining particles. HBEC cells were then exposed to the NP-free CM. (B) CM from THP1* cells caused DNA damage in HBEC cells following 3h exposure. (C) A lower concentration (10µg/ml) of direct exposure to the particles caused similar extent of damage. The bars show mean ± SEM and significant differences compared to the control are marked with asterisks (* for p-value < 0.05, ** for p-value < 0.01, *** for p-value < 0.001).

Figure 4. DNA damage caused by conditioned media. (A) Conditioned media was generated by exposing THP1* cells to 50 µg/ml (15.8 μg Ni/cm2) for 3 or 18 h. Next, the media was removed and centrifuged in order to remove remaining particles. HBEC cells were then exposed to the NP-free CM. (B) CM from THP1* cells caused DNA damage in HBEC cells following 3 h exposure. (C) A lower concentration (10 µg/ml) of direct exposure to the particles caused similar extent of damage. The bars show mean ± SEM and significant differences compared to the control are marked with asterisks (* for p-value < 0.05, ** for p-value < 0.01, *** for p-value < 0.001).

Figure 5. DNA damage observed in a co-culture system. (A) THP1* cells cultured in a transwell were exposed to 50µg/ml (13.2 Ni/cm2) for 3 or 18h and DNA damage was analyzed in HBEC cells cultured beneath the transwell. DNA damage was observed in HBEC cells following 3h exposure (B) and 18h exposure (C). The bars show mean ± SEM and significant differences compared to the control are marked with asterisks (* for p-value < 0.05, ** for p-value < 0.01, *** for p-value < 0.001).

Figure 5. DNA damage observed in a co-culture system. (A) THP1* cells cultured in a transwell were exposed to 50 µg/ml (13.2 Ni/cm2) for 3 or 18 h and DNA damage was analyzed in HBEC cells cultured beneath the transwell. DNA damage was observed in HBEC cells following 3 h exposure (B) and 18 h exposure (C). The bars show mean ± SEM and significant differences compared to the control are marked with asterisks (* for p-value < 0.05, ** for p-value < 0.01, *** for p-value < 0.001).

Figure 6. Conditioned media – Ni ion release and ROS formation. (A) The amount of Ni release (% of added) was analyzed in the CM by using ICP-MS. (B) HBEC cells were exposed to the CM and ROS formation (fold change compared to control) was analyzed by the DCFH-DA assay. The bars show mean ± SEM and significant differences compared to the control are marked with asterisks (* for p-value < 0.05, ** for p-value < 0.01, *** for p-value < 0.001).

Figure 6. Conditioned media – Ni ion release and ROS formation. (A) The amount of Ni release (% of added) was analyzed in the CM by using ICP-MS. (B) HBEC cells were exposed to the CM and ROS formation (fold change compared to control) was analyzed by the DCFH-DA assay. The bars show mean ± SEM and significant differences compared to the control are marked with asterisks (* for p-value < 0.05, ** for p-value < 0.01, *** for p-value < 0.001).
Supplemental material

TNAN-2018-OR-0360-File008.docx

Download MS Word (991.2 KB)