Genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials: methods, preparation and characterization of test material, potential artifacts and limitations--many questions, some answers.

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10146/77960
Title:
Genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials: methods, preparation and characterization of test material, potential artifacts and limitations--many questions, some answers.
Authors:
Landsiedel, Robert; Kapp, Maike Diana; Schulz, Markus; Wiench, Karin; Oesch, Franz
Abstract:
Nanomaterials display novel properties to which most toxicologists have not consciously been exposed before the advent of their practical use. The same properties, small size and particular shape, large surface area and surface activity, which make nanomaterials attractive in many applications, may contribute to their toxicological profile. This review describes what is known about genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials published in the openly available scientific literature to-date. The most frequently used test was the Comet assay: 19 studies, 14 with positive outcome. The second most frequently used test was the micronucleus test: 14 studies, 12 of them with positive outcome. The Ames test, popular with other materials, was less frequently used (6 studies) and was almost always negative, the bacterial cell wall possibly being a barrier for many nanomaterials. Recommendations for improvements emerging from analyzing the reports summarized in this review are: Know what nanomaterial has been tested (and in what form); Consider uptake and distribution of the nanomaterial; Use standardized methods; Recognize that nanomaterials are not all the same; Use in vivo studies to correlate in vitro results; Take nanomaterials specific properties into account; Learn about the mechanism of nanomaterials genotoxic effects. It is concluded that experiences with other, non-nano, substances (molecules and larger particles) taught us that mechanisms of genotoxic effects can be diverse and their elucidation can be demanding, while there often is an immediate need to assess the genotoxic hazard. Thus a practical, pragmatic approach is the use of a battery of standard genotoxicity testing methods covering a wide range of mechanisms. Application of these standard methods to nanomaterials demands adaptations and the interpretation of results from the genotoxicity tests may need additional considerations. This review should help to improve standard genotoxicity testing as well as investigations on the underlying mechanism and the interpretation of genotoxicity data on nanomaterials.
Citation:
Mutat. Res. 2009, 681 (2-3):241-258
Journal:
Mutation research
Issue Date:
20-Aug-2009
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10146/77960
DOI:
10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.10.002
PubMed ID:
19041420
Additional Links:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2G-4TWVX49-1&_user=1843694&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000055040&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1843694&md5=8facaa071afd01685b9aa53fb59097b0
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
0027-5107
Sponsors:
The support by the EU Network of Excellence ECNIS (Environmental Cancer, Nutrition and Individual Susceptibility) operating within the EU 6th Framework Program, Priority 5: “Food Quality and Safety” (Contract no. 513943) and the EU project NanoSafe2 within the EU 6th Framework Program and the German BMBF lead project nanoCare is gratefully acknowledged.
Appears in Collections:
Articles

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorLandsiedel, Robert-
dc.contributor.authorKapp, Maike Diana-
dc.contributor.authorSchulz, Markus-
dc.contributor.authorWiench, Karin-
dc.contributor.authorOesch, Franz-
dc.date.accessioned2009-08-20T11:17:22Z-
dc.date.available2009-08-20T11:17:22Z-
dc.date.issued2009-08-20T11:17:22Z-
dc.identifier.citationMutat. Res. 2009, 681 (2-3):241-258en
dc.identifier.issn0027-5107-
dc.identifier.pmid19041420-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.10.002-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10146/77960-
dc.description.abstractNanomaterials display novel properties to which most toxicologists have not consciously been exposed before the advent of their practical use. The same properties, small size and particular shape, large surface area and surface activity, which make nanomaterials attractive in many applications, may contribute to their toxicological profile. This review describes what is known about genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials published in the openly available scientific literature to-date. The most frequently used test was the Comet assay: 19 studies, 14 with positive outcome. The second most frequently used test was the micronucleus test: 14 studies, 12 of them with positive outcome. The Ames test, popular with other materials, was less frequently used (6 studies) and was almost always negative, the bacterial cell wall possibly being a barrier for many nanomaterials. Recommendations for improvements emerging from analyzing the reports summarized in this review are: Know what nanomaterial has been tested (and in what form); Consider uptake and distribution of the nanomaterial; Use standardized methods; Recognize that nanomaterials are not all the same; Use in vivo studies to correlate in vitro results; Take nanomaterials specific properties into account; Learn about the mechanism of nanomaterials genotoxic effects. It is concluded that experiences with other, non-nano, substances (molecules and larger particles) taught us that mechanisms of genotoxic effects can be diverse and their elucidation can be demanding, while there often is an immediate need to assess the genotoxic hazard. Thus a practical, pragmatic approach is the use of a battery of standard genotoxicity testing methods covering a wide range of mechanisms. Application of these standard methods to nanomaterials demands adaptations and the interpretation of results from the genotoxicity tests may need additional considerations. This review should help to improve standard genotoxicity testing as well as investigations on the underlying mechanism and the interpretation of genotoxicity data on nanomaterials.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThe support by the EU Network of Excellence ECNIS (Environmental Cancer, Nutrition and Individual Susceptibility) operating within the EU 6th Framework Program, Priority 5: “Food Quality and Safety” (Contract no. 513943) and the EU project NanoSafe2 within the EU 6th Framework Program and the German BMBF lead project nanoCare is gratefully acknowledged.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2G-4TWVX49-1&_user=1843694&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000055040&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1843694&md5=8facaa071afd01685b9aa53fb59097b0en
dc.subjectNanomaterialsen
dc.subjectParticlesen
dc.subjectMutagenicityen
dc.subjectGenotoxicityen
dc.subjectDNA damageen
dc.subjectTest methodsen
dc.subject.meshAnimals-
dc.subject.meshArtifacts-
dc.subject.meshHumans-
dc.subject.meshMutagenicity Tests-
dc.subject.meshNanostructures-
dc.subject.meshParticle Size-
dc.titleGenotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials: methods, preparation and characterization of test material, potential artifacts and limitations--many questions, some answers.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalMutation researchen
All Items in ECNIS-NIOM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.