Genotoxicity of inhaled nanosized TiO2 in mice

Nanosafety Research Center, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, FI-00250 Helsinki, Finland.
Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis (Impact Factor: 4.44). 11/2011; 745(1-2):58-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2011.10.011
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In vitro studies have suggested that nanosized titanium dioxide (TiO(2)) is genotoxic. The significance of these findings with respect to in vivo effects is unclear, as few in vivo studies on TiO(2) genotoxicity exist. Recently, nanosized TiO(2) administered in drinking water was reported to increase, e.g., micronuclei (MN) in peripheral blood polychromatic erythrocytes (PCEs) and DNA damage in leukocytes. Induction of micronuclei in mouse PCEs was earlier also described for pigment-grade TiO(2) administered intraperitoneally. The apparent systemic genotoxic effects have been suggested to reflect secondary genotoxicity of TiO(2) due to inflammation. However, a recent study suggested that induction of DNA damage in mouse bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cells after intratracheal instillation of nanosized or fine TiO(2) is independent of inflammation. We examined here, if inhalation of freshly generated nanosized TiO(2) (74% anatase, 26% brookite; 5 days, 4 h/day) at 0.8, 7.2, and (the highest concentration allowing stable aerosol production) 28.5 mg/m(3) could induce genotoxic effects in C57BL/6J mice locally in the lungs or systematically in peripheral PCEs. DNA damage was assessed by the comet assay in lung epithelial alveolar type II and Clara cells sampled immediately following the exposure. MN were analyzed by acridine orange staining in blood PCEs collected 48 h after the last exposure. A dose-dependent deposition of Ti in lung tissue was seen. Although the highest exposure level produced a clear increase in neutrophils in BAL fluid, indicating an inflammatory effect, no significant effect on the level of DNA damage in lung epithelial cells or micronuclei in PCEs was observed, suggesting no genotoxic effects by the 5-day inhalation exposure to nanosized TiO(2) anatase. Our inhalation exposure resulted in much lower systemic TiO(2) doses than the previous oral and intraperitoneal treatments, and lung epithelial cells probably received considerably less TiO(2) than BAL cells in the earlier intratracheal study.


Available from: Antti Joonas Koivisto, Jan 12, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nanotechnology has rapidly entered into human society, revolutionized many areas, including technology, medicine and cosmetics. This progress is due to the many valuable and unique properties that nanomaterials possess. In turn, these properties might become an issue of concern when considering potentially uncontrolled release to the environment. The rapid development of new nanomaterials thus raises questions about their impact on the environment and human health. This review focuses on the potential of nanomaterials to cause genotoxicity and summarizes recent genotoxicity studies on metal oxide/silica nanomaterials. Though the number of genotoxicity studies on metal oxide/silica nanomaterials is still limited, this endpoint has recently received more attention for nanomaterials and the number of related publications has increased. Analysis of these peer reviewed publications over nearly two decades shows that the test most employed to evaluate the genotoxicity of these nanomaterials is comet assay, followed by Micronucleus, Ames and Chromosome aberration tests. Based on the data studied, we concluded that in the majority of the publications analysed in this review, the metal oxide (or silica) nanoparticles of the same core chemical composition did not show different genotoxicity study calls (i.e. positive or negative) in the same test, although some results are inconsistent and need to be confirmed by additional experiments. Where the results are conflicting, it may be due to the following reasons: 1) variation in size of the nanoparticles; 2) variations in size distribution; 3) varying purity of nanomaterials; 4) variation in surface areas for nanomaterials with the same average size; 5) differences in coatings; 6) differences in crystal structures of the same types of nanomaterials; 7) differences in sizes of aggregates in solution/media; 8) differences in assays; 9) different concentrations of nanomaterials in assay tests. Indeed, due to the observed inconsistencies in the recent literature and the lack of adherence to appropriate, standardized test methods, reliable genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials is still challenging.
    Nanoscale 12/2014; DOI:10.1039/C4NR06670G · 6.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Synthetic amorphous silica nanomaterials (SAS) are extensively used in food and tire industries. In many industrial processes, SAS may become aerosolized and lead to occupational exposure of workers through inhalation in particular. However, little is known about the in vivo genotoxicity of these particulate materials. To gain insight into the toxicological properties of four SAS (NM-200, NM-201, NM-202, and NM-203), rats are treated with three consecutive intratracheal instillations of 3, 6, or 12 mg/kg of SAS at 48, 24, and 3 hrs prior to tissue collection (cumulative doses of 9, 18, and 36 mg/kg). Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage was assessed using erythrocyte micronucleus test and the standard and Fpg-modified comet assays on cells from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), lung, blood, spleen, liver, bone marrow, and kidney. Although all of the SAS caused increased dose-dependent changes in lung inflammation as demonstrated by BALF neutrophilia, they did not induce any significant DNA damage. As the amount of SAS reaching the blood stream and subsequently the internal organs is probably to be low following intratracheal instillation, an additional experiment was performed with NM-203. Rats received three consecutive intravenous injections of 5, 10, or 20 mg/kg of SAS at 48, 24, and 3 hrs prior to tissue collection. Despite the hepatotoxicity, thrombocytopenia, and even animal death induced by this nanomaterial, no significant increase in DNA damage or micronucleus frequency was observed in SAS-exposed animals. It was concluded that under experimental conditions, SAS induced obvious toxic effects but did cause any genotoxicity following intratracheal instillation and intravenous injection. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 11/2014; 56(2). DOI:10.1002/em.21928 · 2.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Exposure to ambient air particles is associated with elevated levels of DNA strand breaks (SBs) and endonuclease III, formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase (FPG) and oxoguanine DNA glycosylase-sensitive sites in cell cultures, animals and humans. In both animals and cell cultures, increases in SB and in oxidatively damaged DNA are seen after exposure to a range of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs), including carbon black, carbon nanotubes, fullerene C60, ZnO, silver and gold. Exposure to TiO2 has generated mixed data with regard to SB and oxidatively damaged DNA in cell cultures. Nanosilica does not seem to be associated with generation of FPG-sensitive sites in cell cultures, while large differences in SB generation between studies have been noted. Single-dose airway exposure to nanosized carbon black and multi-walled carbon nanotubes in animal models seems to be associated with elevated DNA damage levels in lung tissue in comparison to similar exposure toTiO2 and fullerene C60. Oral exposure has been associated with augmented DNA damage levels in cells of internal organs, although the doses have been typically very high. Intraveneous and intraperitoneal injection of ENMs have shown contradictory results dependent on the type of ENM and dose in each set of experiments. In conclusion, the exposure to both combustion-derived particles and ENMs is associated with increased levels of DNA damage in the comet assay. Particle size, composition and crystal structure of ENM are considered important determinants of toxicity, whereas their combined contributions to genotoxicity in the comet assay are yet to be thoroughly investigated. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the UK Environmental Mutagen Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail:
    Mutagenesis 01/2015; 30(1):67-83. DOI:10.1093/mutage/geu035 · 3.50 Impact Factor