Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Nanoparticles' indirect threat to DNA : Toxic Gossip?

  
Web edition : Thursday, November 5th, 2009
 
Text Size
access
Novel Nanotox MechanismResearchers have just uncovered a new means, illustrated here, by which nanoparticles may evoke genetic damage.firstthingsfirst/iStockphoto
 
 

Tiny metal nanoparticles can damage DNA, essentially by triggering toxic gossip.

Researchers from throughout the United Kingdom took part in a series of tests in which they separated toxic metal nanoparticles from potentially vulnerable test cells — what I’ll refer to as cellular guinea pigs. In some cases the barrier was a piece of plastic, other times a four-cell-thick, intact wall of tissue.

Although the plastic wall protected the guinea pigs, “We found there was as much damage on the [far] side of the cellular barrier as there was if a barrier hadn’t been there in the first place,” observes C. Patrick Case, a researcher and pathologist at Southmead Hospital in Bristol, England. The finding, he admits, was “a huge surprise.” Particularly since the billionth-of-a-meter-scale particles appear to have wreaked their havoc indirectly.

When tests indicated the nanoparticles were not breaching the cellular wall, Case’s team began probing for evidence of some type of cellular signaling that might relay a damaging message to the DNA of cells on the opposite side.

And indeed, the researchers report today in Nature Nanotechnology, the metal nanoparticles triggered the generation of ATP, a known signaling molecule, within cells of the barrier wall. ATP — and perhaps a chorus of related, but as yet unrecognized signaling molecules — whispered their chemical vitriol to neighboring cells.

The final layer of that wall then spit out its toxic message, which triggered within the hapless guinea-pig cells a splitting of one or more of the outer rails in their DNA’s ladderlike structure.

 

The damage was bad — but also improbable. Keep in mind, Case warns, “We were not trying to model what happens in humans.”

For instance, the UK scientists used unreal concentrations of nanoparticles. They also acknowledge that animals and people have evolved
repair mechanisms to splice damaged DNA back together or to cull affected cells. However, those repair systems do sometimes become overwhelmed, repairing the DNA shoddily or allowing somewhat damaged DNA to persist. In these circumstances, disease — notably cancer — may develop.

 

Working in an orthopedics department, the team's leaders also didn’t design their tests to use garden variety nanoparticles: carbon nanotubes or beads of nanosilver. Instead, they took tiny pieces of the cobalt-chromium alloy used in joint-replacement parts. Over time, shavings can wear off and end up surrounding joints, and perhaps even become excreted. The researchers also didn’t recruit ordinary, healthy cells as their guinea pigs but an experimental line — known as BeWo — which has been derived from placental cells.

In the future, Case says, his team plans to work with more conventional nanomaterials and in experimental systems that may better predict whether and how such teensy bits might prove toxic to the body.

 
xxx
 
I think this fellow is a world class scientist and i always find  his work  enlightening.  So if you didn't understand my excerpts, I hope his simplification made up for my shortfalls!!  There is only one item that is curious to me: "The damage was bad — but also improbable. Keep in mind, Case warns, “We were not trying to model what happens in humans.”
 
Well, he being a world class researcher,  is not likely  one to  perform experiments without a mission.  He is a senior lecturer in the dept of Orthopedics at a London University and well respected on the orthopedic circuit.  He  didn't select the study of Cr and Co randomly.  
 
I think we need to have him continue to direct his work on  Cr and Co to better predict whether and how such small bits of metals may proove toxic to the body. ...or has most of it been toxic to date for those of us who have these implants?  That is the million dollar question. 
 
He is someone who deserves additional funding to complete his reasearch....   

No comments:

Post a Comment