Genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials: methods, preparation and characterization of test material, potential artifacts and limitations--many questions, some answers.
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
MetadataShow full item record
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.
CitationMutat. Res. 2009, 681 (2-3):241-258
SponsorsThe 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.
- Genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials.
- Authors: Oesch F, Landsiedel R
- Issue date: 2012 Jul
- Rationale of genotoxicity testing of nanomaterials: regulatory requirements and appropriateness of available OECD test guidelines.
- Authors: Warheit DB, Donner EM
- Issue date: 2010 Dec
- An automatable platform for genotoxicity testing of nanomaterials based on the fluorometric γ-H2AX assay reveals no genotoxicity of properly surface-shielded cadmium-based quantum dots.
- Authors: Geißler D, Wegmann M, Jochum T, Somma V, Sowa M, Scholz J, Fröhlich E, Hoffmann K, Niehaus J, Roggenbuck D, Resch-Genger U
- Issue date: 2019 Jul 18
- Genotoxicity Assessment of Nanomaterials: Recommendations on Best Practices, Assays, and Methods.
- Authors: Elespuru R, Pfuhler S, Aardema MJ, Chen T, Doak SH, Doherty A, Farabaugh CS, Kenny J, Manjanatha M, Mahadevan B, Moore MM, Ouédraogo G, Stankowski LF Jr, Tanir JY
- Issue date: 2018 Aug 1
- Testing strategies in mutagenicity and genetic toxicology: an appraisal of the guidelines of the European Scientific Committee for Cosmetics and Non-Food Products for the evaluation of hair dyes.
- Authors: Kirkland DJ, Henderson L, Marzin D, Müller L, Parry JM, Speit G, Tweats DJ, Williams GM
- Issue date: 2005 Dec 30