AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Powered by AMiner. Clicking this button will take you away from SciOpen.
Home Nano Biomedicine and Engineering Article
PDF (1.6 MB)
Cite
EndNote(RIS) BibTeX
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research Article | Open Access

In Vivo Genotoxicity of Gold Nanorods in Mouse Bone Marrow Compared with Cyclophosphamide

Amira M. Gamal-Eldeen1,2( ), Mona A.M. Abo-Zeid2,3( ), Sherien M. El-Daly1,4, Mahmoud T. Abo-Elfadl1,2, Cinderella A. Fahmy1,2, Moustafa R.K. Ali5,6, Mostafa A. El-Sayed6
Biochemistry Department, National Research Centre (NRC), Dokki 12622, Cairo, Egypt
Cancer Biology and Genetics Laboratory, Center of Excellence for Advanced Sciences, NRC
Genetics and Cytology Department, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt
Department of Medical Biochemistry, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt
Advanced Material Sciences and Nanotechnology Laboratory, Centre of Excellence for Advanced Sciences, NRC, Cairo, Egypt
Laser Dynamics Laboratory, School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0400, USA
Show Author Information

Abstract

Gold nanorods (GNRs) are now under extensive investigation for biomedical applications. The in vivo genotoxic profile GNRs are not elucidated yet, therefore we investigated it in comparison with one of the most effective chemotherapeutic agents, cyclophosphamide (CP), in a mice model. PEGylated-GNRs (50 nm) were injected to Balb/C mice triple times, while CP-treated mice were treated once and the bone marrow cells (BMCs) were collected after 21 days. Chromosome aberrations, mitotic index, sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs), replicative index, micronucleus (MN) and DNA damage using comet assay were investigated. GNRs induced chromosome aberrations including- and excluding-gaps significantly at p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively, however CP resulted in a higher significant increase in both types with p < 0.001. The percentage of SCEs / cell was not affected by GNRs treatment, while it was extremely significant with CP. Both mitotic activity and proliferative index were reduced dramatically with both of GNRs and CP. The recorded MN were lower in GNRs- than CP-treated mice. The percentage DNA damage, tail length and tail moment were higher in CP than GNRs. In conclusion, CP induced extreme genotoxicity more than GNRs. Both of GNRs and CP induced DNA damage. The study indicated the advantage of lower GNRs genotoxicity than that of CP. After 21 days, one injection of CP led to extreme persistent genotoxic effect more than that of multiple injections of GNRs.

Keywords

Gold-nanorodsCyclophosphamideDNA damageGenotoxicityChromosome aberrationsMicronucleusComet assay

References

[1]

S.K. Sahoo, S. Parveen, and J.J. Panda, The present and future of nanotechnology in human health care. Nanomedicine, 2007, 3(1): 20-31.
Crossref Google Scholar
[2]

P. Rivera Gil, D. Hühn, L.L. del Mercato, et al., Nanopharmacy: Inorganic nanoscale devices as vectors and active compounds. Pharmacological Research, 2010, 62(2): 115-125.
Crossref Google Scholar
[3]

N. Khlebtsov, L. Dykman, Biodistribution and toxicity of engineered gold nanoparticles: a review of in vitro and in vivo studies. Chemical Society Reviews, 2011, 40(3): 1647-1671.
Crossref Google Scholar
[4]

H.J. Johnston, G. Hutchison, F.M. Christensen, et al., A review of the in vivo and in vitro toxicity of silver and gold particulates: particle attributes and biological mechanisms responsible for the observed toxicity. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2010, 40(4): 328-346.
Crossref Google Scholar
[5]

A. Gerber, M. Bundschuh, D. Klingelhofer, et al., Gold nanoparticles: recent aspects for human toxicology. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 2013, 8(1): 32-37.
Crossref Google Scholar
[6]

I.M. Paino, V.S. Marangoni, C. de Oliveira Rde, et al., Cyto and genotoxicity of gold nanoparticles in human hepatocellular carcinoma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Toxicology Letter, 2012, 215(2): 119-125.
Crossref Google Scholar
[7]

N. Singh, B. Manshian, G.J. Jenkins, et al., Nano Genotoxicology: the DNA damaging potential of engineered nanomaterials. Biomaterials, 2009, (23-24): 3891-3914.
Crossref Google Scholar
[8]

M. Schulz, L. Ma-Hock, S. Brill, et al., Investigation on the genotoxicity of different sizes of gold nanoparticles administered to the lungs of rats. Mutation Research, 2012, 745(1-2): 51-57.
Crossref Google Scholar
[9]

J.J. Li, S.L. Lo, C.T. Ng, , et al., Genomic instability of gold nanoparticle treated human lung fibroblast cells. Biomaterials, 2011, 32(23): 5515-5523.
Crossref Google Scholar
[10]

S.J. Soenen, P. Rivera-Gil, J. Montenegro, et al., Cellular toxicity of inorganic nanoparticles: Common aspects and guidelines for improved nanotoxicity evaluation. Nano today, 2011, 6(5): 446–465.
Crossref Google Scholar
[11]

B. Gabrielli, K. Brooks, and S. Pavey. Defective cell cycle checkpoints as targets for anti-cancer therapies. Frontiers in Pharmacology., 2012, 3(9): 9.1-9.6.
Crossref Google Scholar
[12]

D. Anderson, J.B. Bishop, R.C. Garner, et al., Cyclophosphamide: review of its mutagenicity for an assessment of potential germ cell risks. Mutation Research, 1995, 330(1-2): 115-181.
Crossref Google Scholar
[13]

B. Nikoobakht, M.A. El-Sayed, Surface-Enhanced raman scattering studies on aggregated gold nanorods. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 2003, 107:3372–3378.
Crossref Google Scholar
[14]

T.H. Yosida, K. Amano, Autosomal polymorphism in laboratory bred and wild Norway rats, Rattus norvegicus. Misima Chromosoma, 1965, 16: 658- 667.
Crossref Google Scholar
[15]

J.W. Allen, E. El-Nahass, M.K. Sanyal, et al., Sister-chromatid exchange analyses in rodent maternal, embryonic and extra-embryonic tissues: transplacental and direct mutagen exposures. Mutation Research, 1981, 80(2): 297-311.
Crossref Google Scholar
[16]

P. Perry, S. Wolff, New Giemsa method for the differential staining of sister chromatids. Nature (London), 1974, 251: 156-158.
Crossref Google Scholar
[17]

E.L. Schneider, J Lewis, Aging and sister chromatid exchange. Ⅷ. Effect of environment on sister chromatid exchange induction and cell cycle kinetics on Ehrlich ascites tumor cells. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, 1981, 17:327-330.
Crossref Google Scholar
[18]

W. Schmid, The micronucleus test. Mutation Research, 1975, 31: 9-15.
Crossref Google Scholar
[19]

W. Schlörmann, M.Glei, Comet fluorescence in situ hybridization (Comet-FISH): Detection of DNA damage. Cold Spring Harbor Protocols, 2009, 4: 1–6.
Crossref Google Scholar
[20]

D. Chorvatovicová, J. Sandula, Effect of carboxymethyl-chitinglucan on cyclophosphamide induced mutagenicity. Mutation Research, 1995, 346: 43-48.
Crossref Google Scholar
[21]

F.R. Morre, G.A. Urda, and G. Krishna, An in vivo/in vitro method for assessing micronucleus and chromosome aberration induction in rat bone marrow and spleen 1. Studies with cyclophosphamide. Mutation Research, 1995, 335: 191-199.
Crossref Google Scholar
[22]

S.A. Moallem, B.F. Hales, The role of p53 and cell death by apoptosis and necrosis in 4-hydroperoxycyclophosphamide-induced limb malformations. Development, 1998, 125: 3225-3234.
Crossref Google Scholar
[23]

M. Murata, T.Suzuki, and K. Midorikawa, Oxidative DNA damage by a hydroperoxide derivative of cyclophosphamide. Free Radical Biology & Medicine, 2004, 37: 793-802.
Crossref Google Scholar
[24]
S.C. Gad, In Vitro Toxicology, 2nd edition, Taylor & Francis, 2000.
Crossref
[25]

F.U. Alkan, C. Anlas, S. Cinar, et al., Effects of curcumin in combination with cyclophosphamide on canine mammary tumour cell lines. Veterinarni Medicina, 2014, 59(11): 553–572.
Crossref Google Scholar
[26]

E.E. Connor, J. Mwamuka, A. Gole, et al., Gold nanoparticles are taken up by human cells but do not cause acute cytotoxicity. Small, 2005, 1(3): 325–327.
Crossref Google Scholar
[27]

S. Singh, V. D'Britto, A.A. Prabhune, et al., Cytotoxic and genotoxic assessment of glycolipid-reduced and-capped gold and silver nanoparticles. New Journal of Chemistry, 2010, 34: 294–301.
Crossref Google Scholar
[28]

H.K. Patra, S. Banerjee, U. Chaudhuri, et al., Cell selective response to gold nanoparticles. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology, and Medicine, 2007, 3 (2): 111–119.
Crossref Google Scholar
[29]

N. Pernodet, X.H. Fang, Y. Sun, et al., Adverse effects of citrate/gold nanoparticles on human dermal fibroblasts. Small, 2006, 2(6): 766–773.
Crossref Google Scholar
[30]

N. Lewinski, V. Colvin, and R. Drezek, Cytotoxicity of nanoparticles. Small 2008, 4(1): 26–49.
Crossref Google Scholar
[31]

M.A.M. Abo-Zeid, T. Liehr, M. Glei, et al., Detection of Cyto- and Genotoxicity of Rod-Shaped Gold Nanoparticles in Human Blood Lymphocytes Using Comet-FISH. Cytologia, 2015, 80(2): 173–181.
Crossref Google Scholar
[32]

M.A.M. Abo-Zeid, T. Liehr, A.M. Gamal-Eldeen, et al., Potential of rod, sphere and semi-cube shaped gold nanoparticles to induce cytotoxicity and genotoxicity in human blood lymphocytes in vitro. European Journal of Nanomedicine, 2015, 7(1): 63–75.
Crossref Google Scholar
[33]

T.K. Muller, P. Kasper, and L. Muller, Evaluation studies on the in vitro rat hepatocyte micronucleus assay. Mutation Research, 1995, 335: 293-307.
Crossref Google Scholar
[34]

M. Fenech, The in vitro micronucleus technique. Mutation Research, 2000, 445: 81-95.
Crossref Google Scholar
[35]

V. Martinez, A. Creus, W. Venegas, et al., Micronuclei assessment in buccal cells of people environmentally exposed to arsenic in northern Chile. Toxicology Letters, 2005, 155: 319-327.
Crossref Google Scholar
[36]

J. Grigg, A. Tellabati, S. Rhead, et al., DNA damage of macrophages at an air-tissue interface induced by metal nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology, 2009, 3(4): 348–354.
Crossref Google Scholar
[37]

M. Tsoli, H. Kuhn, W. Brandau, et al., Cellular uptake and toxicity of Au55 clusters. Small, 2005, 1:841–844.
Crossref Google Scholar
[38]
Y. Zhao, H.S. Nalwa, Nanotoxicology– Interactions of Nanomaterials with Biological Systems. American Scientific Publishers, 2007.
[39]

B. Kang, M.A. Mackey, and M.A. El-Sayed, Nuclear targeting of gold nanoparticles in cancer cells induces DNA damage, causing cytokinesis arrest and apoptosis. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2010, 132: 1517-1519.
Crossref Google Scholar
[40]

W.-H. Chen, J.-X. Chen, H Cheng, et al., A new anti-cancer strategy of damaging mitochondria by pro-apoptotic peptide functionalized gold nanoparticles. Chemical Communications (Camb), 2013, 49: 6403-6405.
Crossref Google Scholar
[41]

J.J. Li, L. Zou, D. Hartono, et al., Gold nanoparticles induce oxidative damage in lung fibroblasts in vitro. Advanced Materials, 2008, 20(1): 138-142.
Crossref Google Scholar
Nano Biomedicine and Engineering
Volume 8 Issue 4,
December 2016
Pages 306-314
DOI: 10.5101/nbe.v8i4.p306-314
Cite this article:
Gamal-Eldeen AM, Abo-Zeid MA, El-Daly SM, et al. In Vivo Genotoxicity of Gold Nanorods in Mouse Bone Marrow Compared with Cyclophosphamide. Nano Biomedicine and Engineering, 2016, 8(4): 306-314. https://doi.org/10.5101/nbe.v8i4.p306-314

455

Views

16

Downloads

1

Crossref

4

Scopus

Altmetrics
Received: 14 December 2016
Accepted: 27 December 2016
Published: 29 December 2016
© 2016 Amira M. Gamal-Eldeen, Mona A.M. Abo-Zeid, Sherien M. El-Daly, Mahmoud T. Abo-Elfadl, Cinderella A. Fahmy, Moustafa R. K. Ali, and Mostafa A. El-Sayed.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Return