Tag Archives: Wolfgang Kreyling

Labeling 5nm gold nanoparticles with gold isotopes (soft core, hard shell)

There’s a lot of talk about using gold nanoparticles (and others) to deliver drugs to specific locations in the body but this research at Helmholtz Zentrum Muenchen (Munich, Germany) and the University of Marburg (Marburg, Germany) appears to be the first successful attempt at tracking how this potential delivery system might actually work. From a June 23, 2015 news item on Azonano,

Nanoparticles are the smallest particles capable of reaching virtually all parts of the body. Researchers use various approaches to test ways in which nanoparticles could be used in medicine – for instance, to deliver substances to a specific site in the body such as a tumor.

For this purpose, nanoparticles are generally coated with organic materials because their surface quality plays a key role in determining further targets in the body. If they have a water-repellent shell, nanoparticles are quickly identified by the body’s immune system and eliminated.

How gold particles wander through the body

The team of scientists headed by Dr. Wolfgang Kreyling, who is now an external scientific advisor at the Institute of Epidemiology II within the Helmholtz Zentrum Muenchen, and Prof. Wolfgang Parak from the University of Marburg, succeeded for the first time in tracking the chronological sequence of such particles in an animal model. To this end, they generated tiny 5 nm gold nanoparticles radioactively labeled with a gold isotope*. These were also covered with a polymer shell and tagged with a different radioactive isotope. According to the researchers, this was, technically speaking, a very demanding nanotechnological step.

A June 22, 2015 Helmholtz Zentrum Muenchen press release, which originated the news item, provides more detail,

After the subsequent intravenous injection of the particles, however, the team observed how the specially applied polymer shell disintegrated. “Surprisingly, the particulate gold accumulated mainly in the liver,” Dr. Kreyling recalls. “In contrast, the shell molecules reacted in a significantly different manner, distributing themselves throughout the body.” Further analyses conducted by the scientists explained the reason for this: so-called proteolytic enzymes** in certain liver cells appear to separate the particles from their shell. According to the researchers, this effect was hitherto unknown in vivo, since up to now the particle-conjugate had only been tested in cell cultures, where this effect had not been examined sufficiently thoroughly.

“Our results show that even nanoparticle-conjugates*** that appear highly stable can change their properties when deployed in the human body,” Dr. Kreyling notes, evaluating the results. “The study will thus have an influence on future medical applications as well as on the risk evaluation of nanoparticles in consumer products and in science and technology.”

* Isotopes are types of atoms which have different mass numbers but which represent the same element.

** Proteolytic enzymes split protein structures and are used, for example, to nourish or detoxify the body.

*** Conjugates are several types of molecules that are bound in one particle.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

In vivo integrity of polymer-coated gold nanoparticles by Wolfgang G. Kreyling, Abuelmagd M. Abdelmonem, Zulqurnain Ali, Frauke Alves, Marianne Geiser, Nadine Haberl, Raimo Hartmann, Stephanie Hirn, Dorleta Jimenez de Aberasturi, Karsten Kantner, Gülnaz Khadem-Saba, Jose-Maria Montenegro, Joanna Rejman, Teofilo Rojo, Idoia Ruiz de Larramendi, Roser Ufartes, Alexander Wenk, & Wolfgang J. Parak. Nature Nanotechnology (2015) doi:10.1038/nnano.2015.111 Published online 15 June 2015

This paper is behind a paywall.

DNA damage from engineered nanoparticles (zinc oxide, silver, silicon dioxide, cerium oxide and iron oxide)

Before launching into this research, there are a few provisos. This work was done in a laboratory, a highly specialized environment that does not mimic real-life conditions, and performed on animal cells (a hamster’s). As well, naturally occurring nanoparticles were not included (my Nov. 24, 2011 post has some information about naturally occurring nanomaterials including nanosilver which we have been ingesting for centuries).

That said, the studies from the Massachusetts Institute of Techology (MIT) and the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH; last mentioned here in an April 2, 2014 post) are concerning (from an April 9, 2014 news item on Azonano).

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 zinc oxide 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.

More details about current testing requirements and the specific nanoparticles studied can be found in the April 8, 2014 MIT news release, which originated the news item,

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, iron oxide, cerium 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.

Given that Demokritou was part of a team that recently announced a new testing platform (Volumetric Centrifugation Method [VCM]) for nanoparticles as mentioned in my April 2, 2014 post, I was a little curious about the  platform for this project ( the CometChip) and, as always, curious about the results for all the tested engineered nanoparticles (Note: A link has been removed), from the news release,

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.

Happily the researchers are taking a pragmatic approach to the results (from the news release),

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 nanoparticles, including metal oxides used in printer and photocopier toner, which can become airborne and enter the lungs.

Kudos to the writer for the clarity and care shown here (I think it’s Anne Trafton but MIT is not including bylines as it did previously, so I’m uncertain).

Here’s a link to and a citation for the research paper,

High-Throughput Screening Platform for Engineered Nanoparticle-Mediated Genotoxicity Using CometChip Technology by Christa Watson, Jing Ge, Joel Cohen, Georgios Pyrgiotakis, Bevin P. Engelward, and Philip Demokritou. ACS Nano, 2014, 8 (3), pp 2118–2133 DOI: 10.1021/nn404871p Publication Date (Web): March 11, 2014
Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society

This article is behind a paywall.