Interaction of engineered nanomaterials with the immune system: Health-related safety and possible benefits

Personalised Profiling of Innate Immune Memory Induced by Nano-Imaging Particles in Human Monocytes

Engineered nanoparticles used for medical purposes must meet stringent safety criteria, which include immunosafety, i.e., the inability to activate possibly detrimental immune/inflammatory effects. Even medical nanomaterials devoid of direct immunotoxic or inflammatory effects may have an impact on human health if able to modify innate memory, which is the ability to “prime” future immune responses towards a different, possibly more detrimental reactivity. Although innate memory is usually protective, anomalous innate memory responses may be at the basis of immune pathologies. In this study, we have examined the ability of two nanomaterials commonly used for diagnostic imaging purposes, gold and iron oxide nanoparticles, to induce or modulate innate memory, using an in vitro model based on human primary monocytes. Monocytes were exposed in culture to nanoparticles alone or together with the bacterial agent LPS (priming phase/primary response), then rested for six days (extinction phase), and eventually challenged with LPS (memory/secondary response). The memory response to the LPS challenge was measured as changes in the production of inflammatory (TNFα, IL-6) and anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-10, IL-1Ra), as compared to unprimed monocytes. The results show that both types of nanoparticles can have an effect in the induction of memory, with changes observed in the cytokine production. By comparing nanomaterials of different shapes (spherical vs. rod-shaped gold particles) and different size (17 vs. 22 nm diameter spherical iron oxide particles), it was evident that innate memory could be differentially induced and modulated depending on size, shape and chemical composition. However, the main finding was that the innate memory effect of the particles was strongly donor-dependent, with monocytes from each donor showing a distinct memory profile upon priming with the same particles, thereby making impossible to draw general conclusions on the particle effects. Thus, in order to predict the effect of imaging nanoparticles on the innate memory of patients, a personalised profiling would be required, able to take in consideration the peculiarities of the individual innate immune reactivity.

Ex vivo exposure to different types of graphene-based nanomaterials consistently alters human blood secretome

The biomedical applications of graphene-based nanomaterials (GBN) have significantly grown in the last years. Many of these applications suppose their intravenous exposure and, in this way, GBN could encounter blood cells triggering an immunological response of unknown effects. Consequently, understanding the relationships between GBN and the immune system response should be a prerequisite for its adequate use in biomedicine. In the present study, we have conducted a little explored ex vivo exposure method in order to study the complexity of the secretome given by the interactions between GBN and blood cells. Blood samples from different healthy donors were exposed to three different types of GBN widely used in the biomedical field. In this sense, graphene oxide (GO), graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs), graphene nanoribbons (GNRs) and a panel of 105 proteins representatives of the blood secretome were evaluated. The results show broad changes in both the cytokines number and the expression levels, with important changes in inflammatory response markers. Furthermore, the indirect soft-agar assay was used as a tool to unravel the global functional impact of the found secretome changes. Our results indicate that the GBN-induced altered secretome can modify the natural anchorage-independent growth capacity of HeLa cells, used as a model. As a conclusion, this study describes an innovative approach to study the potential harmful effects of GBN, providing relevant data to be considered in the biomedical context when GBN are planned to be used in patients.

Cross-Species Comparisons of Nanoparticle Interactions with Innate Immune Systems: A Methodological Review

Many components of the innate immune system are evolutionarily conserved and shared across many living organisms, from plants and invertebrates to humans. Therefore, these shared features can allow the comparative study of potentially dangerous substances, such as engineered nanoparticles (NPs). However, differences of methodology and procedure between diverse species and models make comparison of innate immune responses to NPs between organisms difficult in many cases. To this aim, this review provides an overview of suitable methods and assays that can be used to measure NP immune interactions across species in a multidisciplinary approach. The first part of this review describes the main innate immune defense characteristics of the selected models that can be associated to NPs exposure. In the second part, the different modes of exposure to NPs across models (considering isolated cells or whole organisms) and the main endpoints measured are discussed. In this synergistic perspective, we provide an overview of the current state of important cross-disciplinary immunological models to study NP-immune interactions and identify future research needs. As such, this paper could be used as a methodological reference point for future nano-immunosafety studies.

Hide and Seek: Nanomaterial Interactions With the Immune System

Engineered nanomaterials hold promise for a wide range of applications in medicine. However, safe use of nanomaterials requires that interactions with biological systems, not least with the immune system, are understood. Do nanomaterials elicit novel or unexpected effects, or is it possible to predict immune responses to nanomaterials based on how the immune system handles pathogens? How does the bio-corona of adsorbed biomolecules influence subsequent immune interactions of nanomaterials? How does the grafting of polymers such as poly(ethylene glycol) onto nanomaterial surfaces impact on these interactions? Can ancient immune evasion or “stealth” strategies of pathogens inform the design of nanomaterials for biomedical applications? Can nanoparticles co-opt immune cells to target diseased tissues? The answers to these questions may prove useful for the development of nanomedicines.