A systematic quality evaluation and review of nanomaterial genotoxicity studies: a regulatory perspective

An insight into impact of nanomaterials toxicity on human health

In recent years, advances in nanotechnology have significantly influenced electronics manufacturing, industrial processes, and medical research. Various industries have seen a surge in the use of nanomaterials. However, several researchers have raised the alarm about the toxicological nature of nanomaterials, which appear to be quite different from their crude forms. This altered nature can be attributed to their unique physicochemical profile. They can adversely affect human health and the environment. Nanomaterials that have been released into the environment tend to accumulate over time and can cause a significant impact on the ecosystem and organisms with adverse health effects. Increased use of nanoparticles has led to increased human exposure in their daily lives, making them more vulnerable to nanoparticle toxicity. Because of their small size, nanomaterials can readily cross biological membranes and enter cells, tissues, and organs. Therefore, the effect of nanomaterials on the human environment is of particular concern. The toxicological effects of nanomaterials and their mechanisms of action are being researched worldwide. Technological advances also support monitoring new nanomaterials marketed for industrial and household purposes. It is a challenging area because of the exceptional physicochemical properties of nanomaterials. This updated review focuses on the diverse toxicological perspective of nanomaterials. We have discussed the use of different types of nanoparticles and their physiochemical properties responsible for toxicity, routes of exposure, bio-distribution, and mechanism of toxicity. The review also includes various in vivo and in vitro methods of assessing the toxicity of nanomaterials. Finally, this review will provide a detailed insight into nano material-induced toxicological response, which can be beneficial in designing safe and effective nanoparticles.

In vitro cell-transforming potential of secondary polyethylene terephthalate and polylactic acid nanoplastics

Continuous exposure to plastic pollutants may have serious consequences on human health. However, most toxicity assessments focus on non-environmentally relevant particles and rarely investigate long-term effects such as cancer induction. The present study assessed the carcinogenic potential of two secondary nanoplastics: polyethylene terephthalate (PET) particles generated from plastic bottles, and a biodegradable polylactic acid material, as respective examples of environmentally existing particles and new bioplastics. Pristine polystyrene nanoplastics were also included for comparison. A broad concentration range (6.25-200 μg/mL) of each nanoplastic was tested in both the initiation and promotion conditions of the regulatory assessment-accepted in vitro Bhas 42 cell transformation assay. Parallel cultures allowed confirmation of the efficient cellular internalisation of the three nanoplastics. Cell growth was enhanced by polystyrene in the initiation assay, and by PET in both conditions. Moreover, the number of transformed foci was significantly increased only by the highest PET concentration in the promotion assay, which also showed dose-dependency, indicating that nano PET can act as a non-genotoxic tumour promotor. Together, these findings support the carcinogenic risk assessment of nanoplastics and raise concerns regarding whether real-life co-exposure of PET nanoplastics and other environmental pollutants may result in synergistic transformation capacities.

Are hydroxyapatite-based biomaterials free of genotoxicity? A systematic review

Hydroxyapatite (HA) is a biomaterial widely used in clinical applications and pharmaceuticals. The literature on HA-based materials studies is focused on chemical characterization and biocompatibility. Generally, biocompatibility is analyzed through adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation assays. Fewer studies are looking for genotoxic events. Thus, although HA-based biomaterials are widely used as biomedical devices, there is a lack of literature regarding their genotoxicity. This systematic review was carried out following the PRISMA statement. Specific search strategies were developed and performed in four electronic databases (PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science). The search used "Hydroxyapatite OR Calcium Hydroxyapatite OR durapatite AND genotoxicity OR genotoxic OR DNA damage" and "Hydroxyapatite OR Calcium Hydroxyapatite OR durapatite AND mutagenicity OR mutagenic OR DNA damage" as keywords and articles published from 2000 to 2022, after removing duplicate studies and apply include and exclusion criteria, 53 articles were identified and submitted to a qualitative descriptive analysis. Most of the assays were in vitro and most of the studies did not show genotoxicity. In fact, a protective effect was observed for hydroxyapatites. Only 20 out of 71 tests performed were positive for genotoxicity. However, no point mutation-related mutagenicity was observed. As the genotoxicity of HA-based biomaterials observed was correlated with its nanostructured forms as needles or rods, it is important to follow their effect in chronic exposure to guarantee safe usage in humans.

Current status and future challenges of genotoxicity OECD Test Guidelines for nanomaterials: a workshop report

Genotoxicity testing for nanomaterials remains challenging as standard testing approaches require some adaptation, and further development of nano-specific OECD Test Guidelines (TGs) and Guidance Documents (GDs) are needed. However, the field of genotoxicology continues to progress and new approach methodologies (NAMs) are being developed that could provide relevant information on the range of mechanisms of genotoxic action that may be imparted by nanomaterials. There is a recognition of the need for implementation of new and/or adapted OECD TGs, new OECD GDs, and utilization of NAMs within a genotoxicity testing framework for nanomaterials. As such, the requirements to apply new experimental approaches and data for genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials in a regulatory context is neither clear, nor used in practice. Thus, an international workshop with representatives from regulatory agencies, industry, government, and academic scientists was convened to discuss these issues. The expert discussion highlighted the current deficiencies that exist in standard testing approaches within exposure regimes, insufficient physicochemical characterization, lack of demonstration of cell or tissue uptake and internalization, and limitations in the coverage of genotoxic modes of action. Regarding the latter aspect, a consensus was reached on the importance of using NAMs to support the genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials. Also highlighted was the need for close engagement between scientists and regulators to (i) provide clarity on the regulatory needs, (ii) improve the acceptance and use of NAM-generated data, and (iii) define how NAMs may be used as part of weight of evidence approaches for use in regulatory risk assessments.

Genotoxicity assessment of titanium dioxide nanoparticles using a standard battery of in vivo assays

As one representative of nanometal oxides, titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2-NPs) have been widely used, particularly in the food industry. The genotoxicity of TiO2-NPs has attracted great attention over the years. This study was undertaken to investigate the chromosome and DNA damage effects of TiO2-NPs (0, 50, 150, and 500 mg/kg BW) using rodent models. After a comprehensive characterization, we conducted a standard battery of in vivo genotoxicity tests, including the chromosomal aberration test (CA), micronucleus (MN) test, and the comet test. The results of all these tests were negative. There were no structural or numerical chromosomal abnormalities in mice bone marrow cells, no increase in the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in mice bone marrow cells, and no elevation in % tail DNA in rat hepatocytes. This indicated that TiO2-NPs did not cause chromosomal damage or have a direct impact on DNA. These findings suggested that TiO2-NPs did not exhibit genotoxicity and provided valuable data for risk assessment purposes.

Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Rutin: Evaluation of Kinetic Parameters and Anti-Proliferative, Mutagenic and Anti-Mutagenic Effects

The bioavailability of glucoside flavonoids is influenced by the nature of the sugar, glucosides being absorbed faster than rhamnoglucosides, for example. One strategy to enhance the bioavailability is enzymatic hydrolysis. In this study, some kinetic parameters of hesperidinase-mediated hydrolysis of rutin were evaluated using an UHPLC/QTOF-MS^E analysis of the products of a bioconversion reaction. The resulting hydrolyzed rutins (after 4, 8 and 12 h of reaction) were submitted to anti-proliferative and Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus (CBMN) assays in CHO-K1 cells. In the hesperidinase-mediated hydrolysis, the final concentration of quercetin-3-O-glucoside (Q3G) was directly proportional to the rutin concentration and inversely proportional to the reaction time. At an anti-proliferative concentration (2.5 μg/mL), hydrolyzed rutin derivatives did not show a mutagenic effect, except for the sample with a higher content of Q3G (after 4 h of the enzymatic hydrolysis of rutin). Moreover, the higher Q3G content in hydrolyzed rutin protected the CHO-K1 cells 92% of the time against methyl methanesulfonate-induced mutagenic damage. These results suggested that the anti-mutagenic effect of hydrolyzed rutin might be related to antioxidant and cell death induction. Presenting a good lipophilicity/hydrophilicity ratio, together with antioxidant and anti-mutagenic activities, the hesperidinase-mediated hydrolyzed rutin seemed to be a promisor raw material for the development of food supplements.