Abstract
In the past years, several in vitro studies have addressed the pulmonary toxicity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) and compared it with that caused by asbestos fibers, but their conclusions have been somewhat inconsistent and difficult to extrapolate to in vivo. Since cell coculture models were proposed to better represent the in vivo conditions than conventional monocultures, this work intended to compare the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of MWCNT-7 (Mitsui-7) and crocidolite using A549 cells grown in a conventional monoculture or in coculture with THP-1 macrophages. Although a decrease in A549 viability was noted following exposure to a concentration range of MWCNT-7 and crocidolite, no viability change occurred in similarly exposed cocultures. Early events indicating epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) were observed which could explain apoptosis resistance. The comet assay results were similar between the two models, being positive and negative for crocidolite and MWCNT-7, respectively. An increase in the micronucleus frequency was detected in the cocultured A549-treated cells with both materials, but not in the monoculture. On the other hand, exposure of A549 monocultures to MWCNT-7 induced a highly significant increase in nucleoplasmic bridges in which those were found embedded. Our overall results demonstrate that (i) both materials are cytotoxic and genotoxic, (ii) the presence of THP-1 macrophages upholds the viability of A549 cells and increases the aneugenic/clastogenic effects of both materials probably through EMT, and (iii) MWCNT-7 induces the formation of nucleoplasmic bridges in A549 cells.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Carmo Proença and Fátima Aguiar, Environmental Health Department of INSA for the kind gift of the crocidolite used in this work, and to Henriqueta Louro, Human Genetics Department of INSA for the DLS analysis of Mitsui-7.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Correction Statement
This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2022.2111136)