背景:吸入的纳米颗粒(NP)挑战呼吸道中的移动和固定屏障,可以由II型肺细胞(固定)和单核细胞(移动)表示,但对于生物学效应更重要的是,牢房里,还是纳米粒子的类型?这里,我们解决了这些问题,我们证明了NP的类型对生物效应有更高的影响,但是细胞谱系对类似类型的NP也有不同的反应。
方法:将II型肺细胞和单核细胞暴露于二氧化锡(SnO2)NP和二氧化钛(TiO2)NP(1、10和50μg/cm2)24小时,细胞活力,超微结构,单元格粒度,脂类的分子光谱,评估了蛋白质和核酸以及细胞骨架结构。
结果:SnO2NP和TiO2NP是具有相似物理化学性质的金属氧化物。然而,在没有细胞毒性的情况下,单核细胞中SnO2NPs摄取较低,而II型肺细胞中SnO2NPs摄取较高,而TiO2NP被两种类型的细胞高度内化。与II型肺细胞相比,暴露于两种类型的NP的单核细胞在通过傅立叶变换红外光谱(FTIR)分析的蛋白质和核酸的分子模式中显示出更多的变化。此外,与暴露于SnO2NP的细胞相比,暴露于TiO2NP的细胞在生物分子的FTIR光谱中显示出更多的位移。关于小区架构,微管在暴露于两种类型的NP的II型肺细胞中都是稳定的,但肌动蛋白丝在暴露于SnO2NP和TiO2NP的II型肺细胞和单核细胞中显示出更多的变化。NPs暴露仅在单核细胞中诱导大液泡的形成,在II型肺细胞中未见到。
结论:大多数细胞效应受NPs暴露而不是细胞类型的影响。然而,mobile,在没有细胞毒性的情况下,呼吸道中的固定屏障对SnO2NP和TiO2NP表现出不同的反应,其中单核细胞比II型肺细胞对NP暴露更敏感。
BACKGROUND: Inhaled nanoparticles (NPs) challenges mobile and immobile barriers in the respiratory tract, which can be represented by type II pneumocytes (immobile) and monocytes (mobile) but what is more important for biological effects, the cell linage, or the type of nanoparticle? Here, we addressed these questions and we demonstrated that the type of NPs exerts a higher influence on biological effects, but cell linages also respond differently against similar type of NPs.
METHODS: Type II pneumocytes and monocytes were exposed to tin dioxide (SnO2) NPs and titanium dioxide (TiO2) NPs (1, 10 and 50 μg/cm2) for 24 h and cell viability, ultrastructure, cell granularity, molecular spectra of lipids, proteins and nucleic acids and cytoskeleton architecture were evaluated.
RESULTS: SnO2 NPs and TiO2 NPs are metal oxides with similar physicochemical properties. However, in the absence of cytotoxicity, SnO2 NPs uptake was low in monocytes and higher in type II pneumocytes, while TiO2 NPs were highly internalized by both types of cells. Monocytes exposed to both types of NPs displayed higher number of alterations in the molecular patterns of proteins and nuclei acids analyzed by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) than type II pneumocytes. In addition, cells exposed to TiO2 NPs showed more displacements in FTIR spectra of biomolecules than cells exposed to SnO2 NPs. Regarding cell architecture, microtubules were stable in type II pneumocytes exposed to both types of NPs but actin filaments displayed a higher number of alterations in type II pneumocytes and monocytes exposed to SnO2 NPs and TiO2 NPs. NPs exposure induced the formation of large vacuoles only in monocytes, which were not seen in type II pneumocytes.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the cellular effects are influenced by the NPs exposure rather than by the cell type. However, mobile, and immobile barriers in the respiratory tract displayed differential response against SnO2 NPs and TiO2 NPs in absence of cytotoxicity, in which monocytes were more susceptible than type II pneumocytes to NPs exposure.