Ingested Engineered Nanomaterials Affect the Expression of Mucin Genes-An In Vitro-In Vivo Comparison

Determinants and mechanisms of inorganic nanoparticle translocation across mammalian biological barriers

Biological barriers protect delicate internal tissues from exposures to and interactions with hazardous materials. Primary anatomical barriers prevent external agents from reaching systemic circulation and include the pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and dermal barriers. Secondary barriers include the blood-brain, blood-testis, and placental barriers. The tissues protected by secondary barriers are particularly sensitive to agents in systemic circulation. Neurons of the brain cannot regenerate and therefore must have limited interaction with cytotoxic agents. In the testis, the delicate process of spermatogenesis requires a specific milieu distinct from the blood. The placenta protects the developing fetus from compounds in the maternal circulation that would impair limb or organ development. Many biological barriers are semi-permeable, allowing only materials or chemicals, with a specific set of properties, that easily pass through or between cells. Nanoparticles (particles less than 100 nm) have recently drawn specific concern due to the possibility of biological barrier translocation and contact with distal tissues. Current evidence suggests that nanoparticles translocate across both primary and secondary barriers. It is known that the physicochemical properties of nanoparticles can affect biological interactions, and it has been shown that nanoparticles can breach primary and some secondary barriers. However, the mechanism by which nanoparticles cross biological barriers has yet to be determined. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to summarize how different nanoparticle physicochemical properties interact with biological barriers and barrier products to govern translocation.

Experimental and Computational Nanotoxicology-Complementary Approaches for Nanomaterial Hazard Assessment

The growing development and applications of nanomaterials lead to an increasing release of these materials in the environment. The adverse effects they may elicit on ecosystems or human health are not always fully characterized. Such potential toxicity must be carefully assessed with the underlying mechanisms elucidated. To that purpose, different approaches can be used. First, experimental toxicology consisting of conducting in vitro or in vivo experiments (including clinical studies) can be used to evaluate the nanomaterial hazard. It can rely on variable models (more or less complex), allowing the investigation of different biological endpoints. The respective advantages and limitations of in vitro and in vivo models are discussed as well as some issues associated with experimental nanotoxicology. Perspectives of future developments in the field are also proposed. Second, computational nanotoxicology, i.e., in silico approaches, can be used to predict nanomaterial toxicity. In this context, we describe the general principles, advantages, and limitations especially of quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models and grouping/read-across approaches. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of these different approaches based on examples and highlight their complementarity.