Some nanoparticles commonly added to consumer products can significantly damage DNA

Apr 09, 2014 by Anne Trafton
Credit: Christine Daniloff/MIT

housands of consumer products—including cosmetics, sunscreens, and clothing—contain nanoparticles added by manufacturers to improve texture, kill microbes, or enhance shelf life, among other purposes. However, several studies have shown that some of these engineered nanoparticles can be toxic to cells.

A new study from MIT and the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) suggests that certain nanoparticles can also harm DNA. This research was led by Bevin Engelward, a professor of biological engineering at MIT, and associate professor Philip Demokritou, director of HSPH's Center for Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology.

The researchers found that nanoparticles, often used in sunscreen to block ultraviolet rays, significantly damage DNA. Nanoscale silver, which has been added to toys, toothpaste, clothing, and other products for its antimicrobial properties, also produces substantial DNA damage, they found.

The findings, published in a recent issue of the journal ACS Nano, relied on a high-speed screening technology to analyze DNA damage. This approach makes it possible to study nanoparticles' potential hazards at a much faster rate and larger scale than previously possible.

The Food and Drug Administration does not require manufacturers to test nanoscale additives for a given material if the bulk material has already been shown to be safe. However, there is evidence that the nanoparticle form of some of these materials may be unsafe: Due to their immensely small size, these materials may exhibit different physical, chemical, and biological properties, and penetrate cells more easily.

"The problem is that if a nanoparticle is made out of something that's deemed a safe material, it's typically considered safe. There are people out there who are concerned, but it's a tough battle because once these things go into production, it's very hard to undo," Engelward says.

The researchers focused on five types of engineered nanoparticles—silver, zinc oxide, , , and silicon dioxide (also known as amorphous silica)—that are used industrially. Some of these nanomaterials can produce free radicals called reactive oxygen species, which can alter DNA. Once these particles get into the body, they may accumulate in tissues, causing more damage.

"It's essential to monitor and evaluate the toxicity or the hazards that these materials may possess. There are so many variations of these materials, in different sizes and shapes, and they're being incorporated into so many products," says Christa Watson, a postdoc at HSPH and the paper's lead author. "This toxicological screening platform gives us a standardized method to assess the engineered nanomaterials that are being developed and used at present."

The researchers hope that this screening technology could also be used to help design safer forms of nanoparticles; they are already working with partners in industry to engineer safer UV-blocking nanoparticles. Demokritou's lab recently showed that coating zinc oxide particles with a nanothin layer of amorphous silica can reduce the particles' ability to damage DNA.

Rapid analysis

Until now, most studies of nanoparticle toxicity have focused on cell survival after exposure. Very few have examined genotoxicity, or the ability to damage DNA—a phenomenon that may not necessarily kill a cell, but one that can lead to cancerous mutations if the damage is not repaired.

A common way to study DNA damage in cells is the so-called "comet assay," named for the comet-shaped smear that damaged DNA forms during the test. The procedure is based on gel electrophoresis, a test in which an electric field is applied to DNA placed in a matrix, forcing the DNA to move across the gel. During electrophoresis, damaged DNA travels farther than undamaged DNA, producing a comet-tail shape.

Measuring how far the DNA can travel reveals how much DNA damage has occurred. This procedure is very sensitive, but also very tedious.

In 2010, Engelward and MIT professor Sangeeta Bhatia developed a much more rapid version of the comet assay, known as the CometChip. Using microfabrication technology, single cells can be trapped in tiny microwells within the matrix. This approach makes it possible to process as many as 1,000 samples in the time that it used to take to process just 30 samples—allowing researchers to test dozens of experimental conditions at a time, which can be analyzed using imaging software.

Wolfgang Kreyling, an epidemiologist at the German Research Center for Environmental Health who was not involved in the study, says this technology should help toxicologists catch up to the rapid rate of deployment of engineered nanoparticles (ENPs).

"High-throughput screening platforms are desperately needed," Kreyling says. "The proposed approach will be not only an important tool for nanotoxicologists developing high-throughput screening strategies for the assessment of possible adverse health effects associated with ENPs, but also of great importance for material scientists working on the development of novel ENPs and safer-by-design approaches."

Using the CometChip, the MIT and HSPH researchers tested the nanoparticles' effects on two types of cells that are commonly used for toxicity studies: a type of human blood cells called lymphoblastoids, and an immortalized line of Chinese hamster ovary cells.

Zinc oxide and silver produced the greatest DNA damage in both cell lines. At a concentration of 10 micrograms per milliliter—a dose not high enough to kill all of the cells—these generated a large number of single-stranded DNA breaks.

Silicon dioxide, which is commonly added during food and drug production, generated very low levels of DNA damage. Iron oxide and cerium oxide also showed low genotoxicity.

How much is too much?

More studies are needed to determine how much exposure to metal oxide nanoparticles could be unsafe for humans, the researchers say.

"The biggest challenge we have as people concerned with exposure biology is deciding when is something dangerous and when is it not, based on the dose level. At low levels, probably these things are fine," Engelward says. "The question is: At what level does it become problematic, and how long will it take for us to notice?"

One of the areas of greatest concern is occupational exposure to nanoparticles, the researchers say. Children and fetuses are also potentially at greater risk because their cells divide more often, making them more vulnerable to DNA damage.

The most common routes that engineered nanoparticles follow into the body are through the skin, lungs, and stomach, so the researchers are now investigating nanoparticle genotoxicity on those cell types. They are also studying the effects of other engineered , including metal oxides used in printer and photocopier toner, which can become airborne and enter the lungs.

Explore further: Researchers develop technique to measure quantity, risks of engineered nanomaterials delivered to cells

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Lungs may suffer when certain elements go nano

Jan 28, 2014

(Phys.org) —Nanoparticles are used in all kinds of applications—electronics, medicine, cosmetics, even environmental clean-ups. More than 2,800 commercially available applications are now based on nanoparticles, ...

Are silver nanoparticles harmful?

Mar 14, 2012

Silver nanoparticles cause more damage to testicular cells than titanium dioxide nanoparticles, according to a recent study by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. However, the use of both types may affect testicular ...

Plasma tool for destroying cancer cells

Mar 25, 2014

Plasma medicine is a new and rapidly developing area of medical technology. Specifically, understanding the interaction of so-called atmospheric pressure plasma jets with biological tissues could help to ...

Recommended for you

Tough foam from tiny sheets

13 minutes ago

Tough, ultralight foam of atom-thick sheets can be made to any size and shape through a chemical process invented at Rice University.

Graphene surfaces on photonic racetracks

Jul 28, 2014

In an article published in Optics Express, scientists from The University of Manchester describe how graphene can be wrapped around a silicon wire, or waveguide, and modify the transmission of light through it.

Simulating the invisible

Jul 28, 2014

Panagiotis Grammatikopoulos in the OIST Nanoparticles by Design Unit simulates the interactions of particles that are too small to see, and too complicated to visualize. In order to study the particles' behavior, he uses ...

Building 'invisible' materials with light

Jul 28, 2014

A new method of building materials using light, developed by researchers at the University of Cambridge, could one day enable technologies that are often considered the realm of science fiction, such as invisibility ...

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

katesisco
3 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2014
Sadly, this was known before nanos became the wonderchild of science.
How does science justify toxicity dumping? In trying to rationalize this travesty, I suspect moral people came to the conclusion that the money generated would lead to cures and new energy sources thereby offsetting the harm. But that has not happened, just more justification of more harm. We are so fragile.
MrVibrating
not rated yet Apr 09, 2014
Hahaha fantastic, as i've been saying long before there was a shred of evidence - sunscreen causes cancer! LMFAO.

Thinking of quitting smoking, keep your lungs nice and healthy? OXYGEN causes cancer. It's actually the most prevalent environmental carcinogen...

No i'm not advocating anything... just love these little ironies...
Z99
not rated yet Apr 09, 2014
Cell replication 'causes' cancer. So, who wants their cell's to cease that? This claims that silver nanoparticles are contained in toothpaste. I find that amazing as well as that the EU has silver as an approved food additive. Of course, both silver and mercury are used in dental fillings, too, so I guess I shouldn't be so amazed in bureaucratic stupidity. As a surface's radius of curvature (profile) approaches molecular size, the energy of that surface increases. The more energy a chemical has, the more reactive it is. Using macroscopic safety as a proxy for nanoscopic materials is something I would expect for 1930. One needs to take care in describing a material as "nanotechnology", since you need to consider all three dimensions. TiO2, common in both sunscreens and many cosmetics, is also known to generate high concentrations of free radicals under UV light exposure (sunlight). In fact, most TiO2 pigment is coated to prevent it. Without that, tio2 literally destroys plastic.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2014
Inadequacy of Perception is clear. From now on can wisdom prevail upon.
Scientific Progress and credibility should go hand in hand ? not in hand-in glove with business .
Where lies professional Committment ?- nature and Divine Principles to save life- sensitive index.
Lex Talonis
not rated yet Apr 10, 2014
It's does not surprise me, but I am appalled at all the stupid human extinguishing ultra-fine crap added to all the foods etc., and of course the "labelling laws" don't say that any of this crap has to be mentioned as an nano-particle additive......

"Wow it does wonder for the texture and viscosity of the mixture..." as they shovel in amporous silica to the 100% fat free ice cream......
Tangent2
not rated yet Apr 14, 2014
The Food and Drug Administration does not require manufacturers to test nanoscale additives for a given material if the bulk material has already been shown to be safe. However, there is evidence that the nanoparticle form of some of these materials may be unsafe: Due to their immensely small size, these materials may exhibit different physical, chemical, and biological properties, and penetrate cells more easily.


The level of ignorance in that statement is palpable. "Oh gee, size and geometry actually matter in 3D space, who knew?!" How can people put up with this? Especially when looking at this article from today:

This structure is possible only because the nanowire dimensions are so small. You cannot achieve the same properties at dimensions visible to the eye. This is a great example of the power of nanotechnology.


Source: http://phys.org/n...res.html