Nanoscale Research Letters
Springer US
image
Reactive Oxygen Species-Related Nanoparticle Toxicity in the Biomedical Field
Volume: 15
DOI 10.1186/s11671-020-03344-7
  • PDF   
  • XML   
  •       
Abstract

The unique physicochemical characteristics of nanoparticles have recently gained increasing attention in a diverse set of applications, particularly in the biomedical field. However, concerns about the potential toxicological effects of nanoparticles remain, as they have a higher tendency to generate excessive amounts of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Due to the strong oxidation potential, the excess ROS induced by nanoparticles can result in the damage of biomolecules and organelle structures and lead to protein oxidative carbonylation, lipid peroxidation, DNA/RNA breakage, and membrane structure destruction, which further cause necrosis, apoptosis, or even mutagenesis. This review aims to give a summary of the mechanisms and responsible for ROS generation by nanoparticles at the cellular level and provide insights into the mechanics of ROS-mediated biotoxicity. We summarize the literature on nanoparticle toxicity and suggest strategies to optimize nanoparticles for biomedical applications.

Keywords
Yu, Li, Wang, Yu, Wang, Zhou, and Li: Reactive Oxygen Species-Related Nanoparticle Toxicity in the Biomedical Field

Introduction

Nanoparticles (NPs) are a class of novel synthetic particles with dimensions < 100 nm. Depending on their shape and size, the distinct physical and chemical characteristics give NPs different functions. NPs are widely used in many consumer products, including textiles, cosmetics, water purification, and food packaging [1, 2]. They are also used in the engineering of photocatalysts, energy, and optoelectronics [36].

In particular, NPs have become a favored material in biomedical materials and are widely used in biosensors, siRNAs delivery, targeted gene knockdown, drug delivery, and in bio-filling medical materials [711]. Further uses of NPs are still being discovered. For example, Duan et al. [12] showed that Fe3O4-polyethylene glycol-polyamide-amine-matrix metalloproteinase2@ chlorin e6 (Fe3O4 -PEG-G5-MMP2@Ce6) nanoprobes significantly inhibited gastric tumor growth. In another case, pDNA-polyethylenimine CeO nanoparticles (pDNA-PEI-CeO NPs) could induce more fibrosarcoma cell apoptosis [13]. Furthermore, hollow silica-Fe-polyethylene glycol-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 nanoparticles (HS-Fe-PEG-HER2 NPs) could selectively bind tumor cells and were used as imaging agents to distinguish normal tissue from cancerous cells [14]. Finally, silver nanoparticles (Ag NPs) serve as nano-antibiotics, which efficiently combat resistant bacterial biofilm-associated infections [15].

Despite the potential for positive applications of NPs in various fields, an increasing number of studies have indicated their adverse effects on organisms [16, 17] and cells following NP exposure [18, 19]. The toxic potential of NPs is dependent on their size and shape, which determined their propensity to induce the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [20, 21]. The excess generation ROS may induce an array of physiopathologic outcomes, including genotoxicity, apoptosis, necrosis, inflammation, fibrosis, metaplasia, hypertrophy, and carcinogenesis [18, 22, 23]. The toxicity of NPs has also been shown to enhance the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and activate inflammatory cells, such as macrophages, which further increase the generation of ROS [23, 24]. The increased generation of ROS following exposure to NPs has been also shown to induce the modulation of cellular functions, with fatal results in some cases [17, 23, 25]. In this review, we discuss the main mechanisms underlying the ROS bursts induced by NPs, analyze the primary reasons for the cytotoxicity of NPs, and summarize the potential pathogenic effects of NPs. Our present review provides overwhelming evidence that the over-production of ROS is the major cause of the biotoxicity of NPs. Therefore, novel research should aim to reduce the cytotoxicity of NPs by designing NPs which induce low ROS production.

The Application of NPs in the Biomedical Field

NPs have been used in a variety of medical applications, and several novel NPs exhibit properties which are promising for their use in novel biomedical materials. As summarized in Table 1, Nano-C60 can be used as an anticancer agent, which inhibits cancer cell proliferation, both in vivo and in vitro [26]. ZnO NPs have been used as fillers in orthopedic and dental implants [38]. TiO2 can be used as antibacterial agents, in air and water purification, and for dental prostheses [5254]. Davaeifar et al. reported that a phycocyanin-ZnO nanorod could protect the cell by decreasing endogenous ROS generation [68]. Pacurari et al. pointed out that SWCNTs could be applied as a clinical diagnostic agent and as bioengineering materials [88]. Beyond that, numerous NPs can be used as antimicrobial agents, which kill bacteria by inducing ROS bursts (Table 1).

Table 1
NPs played their biologic role by inducing ROS burst in cells
No.Type of NPsPotential applicationsROSDoseMolecule mechanism of biotoxicityReferences
1Nano-C60Antibacterial agents, Anticancer agents.1 μg/mLNecrosis, apoptosis, autophagy, DNA fragmentation, cell membrane damage.[2628]
2Carbon-based nanodotsAntibacterial agents.> 1 mg/mLOxidize the phospholipids, destroy the membranes.[29]
3AgAntibacterial agents.150 μg/mLIntracellular oxidation, membrane potential variation, membrane permeability disruption, DNA damage, genomic instability, cell cycle arrest, cellular contents release, inactivate proteins, autophagy, disturb electron transfer process.[3036]
4Gold-silver nanocageAntibacterial agents.2.5 μg/mLDestruction of cell membrane, apoptosis.[37]
5ZnOWastewater purification, antibacterial agents, antitumor agents, fillers in orthopedic, and dental implants.20 μg/mLDisintegration the cell membrane, inhibition enzyme activity, inhibition DNA synthesis, DNA damage, interruption of energy transduction, mitochondrial damage, apoptosis, intracellular outflow, mitotic arrest, carcinogenic.[3845]
6GoldAnticancer agents, antibacterial agents.20 μMCollapse membrane potential, inhibit ATPase activities, inhibit the subunit of ribosome.[46, 47]
7MgOAntibacterial agents, anticancer agents.100 mg/mLLipid peroxidation, apoptosis.[48, 49]
8Fe3O4Antibacterial agents.32 μg/mLDNA cleavage.[50]
9CdSeAntibacterial agents.Inhibition proliferation.[51]
10TiO2Antimicrobial agents, air and water purification, dental prosthesis.10 μg/mLLoss respiratory activity, interfere oxidative phosphorylation, DNA lesions, mitochondrial dysfunction, carcinogenicity.[5257]
11Al2O3Antibacterial agents, cross-linker.0.16 mg/LDNA damage, mutagenesis.[58, 59]
12VO2Antimicrobial agents.2.5 μg/mLMitochondrial dysfunction apoptosis.[60, 61]
13V2O5Antimicrobial agents.20 mg/LInterruption mitochondrial function.[62, 63]
14PCAEAntimicrobial agents.30 μg/mLMembrane damages.[64]
15Co-ZnOAntimicrobial agents.20 μg/mLLow toxicity.[65]
16Hybrid Gold/PolymerAntimicrobial agents.UnknownUnknownNo cytotoxicity.[66]
17Ag-Fe NPsAntimicrobial agents.100 mg/LLDH release, disruption membrane integrity.[67]
18Phycocyanin-ZnO nanorodProtect cell.50 μg/mLDecrease in ROS production.[68]
19Ag/lyz-MtAntimicrobial agents, water disinfection.160 μg/mLDamage cell membrane.[69]
20PEGylated ZnOAntimicrobial agents, biological labeling.45 ppmLow cytotoxicity.[70]
21CdS NPsAntimicrobial agents.4 μg/mLInhibition proper cell septum formation, change morphology, fragment nuclei.[71]
22CdTeAntimicrobial agents.0.4 mg/LMorphological damages, apoptosis, genotoxicity.[72]
23ZnO@APTMS/Cu QDsAntibacterial agents.1.4 × 10-4 MInhibition proliferation.[73]
24CuOAntimicrobial agents.5 mg/LIncrease cell permeability, lipid peroxidation, DNA damage, morphological alterations, mitochondrial dysfunction, interruption ATP synthesis.[7476]
25Mn3O4Antioxidant.20 ng/μLProtect biomolecules against ROS.[77]
26PEGylated nanoceriaAntioxidant.10 μMCell protection, radical scavenger.[78]
27CeO2Against oxidative damage.2.5 μg/mLSuppressed ROS production, protect cells, and tissues.[79]
28AuNPs-rGO-NCAnticancer agents, antimicrobial agents.50 μg/mLReduction cell activity,[80]
29CONPsAnticancer agents.10 μMDNA damage.[81]
30GrapheneCancer theotherapy, bioimaging, biosensing.25 μg/mLDNA damage, mutagenesis.[82, 83]
31Fe2O3Antibacterial agents.80 μg/mLDNA damage.[84]
32NiOAntibacterial agents.10 mg/LDNA damage.[85, 86]
33PtAuNRsAnticancer agents.OD at 0.5Induce hyperthermia.[87]
34SWCNTsClinical diagnostic agent, bioengineered research.50 μg/cm2DNA damage.[88]
35bsCdSAnticancer agents.15 μg/mLApoptosis, depletion ATP, DNA damage.[89]
36Ag@OTVAgainst H1N1 infection.UnknownLess cytotoxicity.[90]
37PATA3-C4@CuS Antibacterial agents.5.5 μg/mLLess cytotoxicity.[91]

The Mechanisms of Increased ROS Induced by NPs in Cells

ROS are chemically reactive particles that contain oxygen, including hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), reactive superoxide anion radicals (O2- ), and hydroxyl radicals (•OH) [92, 93]. ROS are predominantly generated in organelles such as the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), in peroxisomes, and most notably in the mitochondria [94]. During oxidative phosphorylation, oxygen is used for the synthesis of water by the addition of electrons through the mitochondrial electron transport chain (ETC). Some of these electrons are accepted by molecular oxygen to form O2-, which can further transform H2O2 and •OH [93].

In a physiological context, ROS are produced as a natural response to the normal metabolism of oxygen [95] and serve a vital role in various cellular signaling pathways [96, 97]. Dröge and Holmstrom et al. reported that ROS could activate numerous signaling cascades, including the epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor, the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) cascades, the transcription factor activator protein-1 (AP-1), and the nuclear factor-KB (NF-κB), and further participated in the process of mammalian growth, proliferation, and differentiation [98, 99]. Further studies showed that ROS also regulated wound repair [100], survival after hypoxia [101], intracellular pH homeostasis [102], and innate immunity [103].

Nevertheless, following exposure to NPs, the intracellular generation of ROS may sharply increase by inducing ROS bursts in cells [20] (Table 1). The main mechanistic explanations for ROS bursts are that metal ions released by NPs promote ROS overexpression by impairing mitochondrial respiration [30, 104].

The metal ions released by NPs have been shown to mix into redox cycling and chemocatalysis via the Fenton reaction [H2O2 + Fe2+ → Fe3+ + HO + •OH] or Fenton-like reaction [Ag+ H2O2+H+ = Ag+ + •OH + H2 O] [23, 105, 106]. The dissociated metal ion (i.e., Ag+ ) also causes cellular enzyme deactivation, membrane structure disruption [31, 107], disturbed electron-shuttling process [108], depleted redox potential levels, reduced mitochondrial membrane potentials (MMP) [109], and further enhances the accumulation of intracellular ROS. NPs have been also reported to promote the intracellular ROS accumulation by disturbing the electron transfer process [32, 110], increasing the NADP+ /NADPH ratio [30], and interfering mitochondrial function [18]. NPs further interfere with the expression of oxidative stress-related genes, such as soxS, soxR, oxyR, and ahpC [58]; antioxidant genes, like sod1 and gpx 1 [111, 112]; and the NADPH production-related gene met9 [30]. The instability in the expression of oxidative and antioxidant genes caused by NPs accelerates intracellular ROS accumulation.

Interestingly, increased ROS production has been strongly associated with particular sizes and shapes of NPs [113, 114]. For example, TiO2 NPs contributed to intracellular ROS generation, which led to nucleic acid and protein damage [10]. Liao et al. found that 10 nm TiO2 NPs had higher genotoxicity than other sizes tested and therefore could induce more ROS generation [115]. In another case, Se NPs promoted the production of ROS in cells, and the yield of intracellular ROS was highly associated with the diameter of Se NPs. In this case, a diameter of 81 nm induced more ROS production than other sizes tested [113]. Cho et al. further showed that the shape of NPs strongly affected their capacity to induce ROS production. Day flower-mimicking metallic nanoparticles (D-NP) lead to a significantly higher production of ROS than night flower-mimicking metallic nanoparticles (N-NP), resulting in an enhanced cell killing effect [114] (Fig. 1).

The production of ROS induced by NPs in surrounding solution and cells [32]. The electrons generated from NPs could enter into cells and disturb the functions of respiratory chain, then enhance the intracellular ROS production. Electrons also could react with O2 directly and increased the generation of extracellular ROS
Fig. 1
The production of ROS induced by NPs in surrounding solution and cells [32]. The electrons generated from NPs could enter into cells and disturb the functions of respiratory chain, then enhance the intracellular ROS production. Electrons also could react with O2 directly and increased the generation of extracellular ROS

NPs can induce intracellular ROS bursts at a very low concentration (showed in Table 1), for example, Nano-C60 at 1 μg/mL can significantly increase cell apoptosis by inducing oxidative stress [26, 27]. Notably, most NPs have a dose-dependent effect, as has been reported for VO2 NPs [60, 61] and CuO NPs [74, 75].

Catastrophic Consequences of NPs on Cells by Increased ROS Production

NPs which enter the cell often have adverse effects on it. The most supported explanation for the cytotoxicity of NPs is that oxidative stress is induced by a ROS burst. ROS bursts caused by NPs have resulted in the oxidative modification of biomacromolecules, in the damage of cellular structures, in the developing drug resistance, in gene mutation, and in carcinogenesis [116, 117]. Furthermore, ROS bursts have altered the normal physiological functions of cells, as in is the case with trigger inflammation, which ultimately blocks cell functions and damages the organism [23, 118, 119]. Generally, NPs are first adsorbed on the cell surface, and then passed through the membrane into the cell, where they induce ROS generation [36]. Due to its strong oxidative potential, ROS is highly stressful to cell [46] and attacks nearly all types of biomolecules in the cell, including carbohydrates, nucleic acids, unsaturated fatty acids, proteins and amino acids, and vitamins [36, 120, 121] (Fig. 2).

The crucial role of ROS in the cytotoxicity induced by NPs [33]. The possible cellular events taking place after NPs interact with intracellular systems
Fig. 2
The crucial role of ROS in the cytotoxicity induced by NPs [33]. The possible cellular events taking place after NPs interact with intracellular systems

ROS Results in Lipid Peroxidate and Membrane Structure Damage

Lipids, especially unsaturated fatty acids, are important intracellular macromolecules, which play key roles in the structure and functioning of the cell membrane. NPs are strongly attracted to the cell membrane, where they can generate ROS and lead to outer membrane lipid peroxidation. The altered fatty acid content of the cell membrane may result in increased cell permeability, which results in the uncontrolled transport of NPs from the extracellular environment into the cytoplasm, where cellular damage may progress further [76, 122].

Intracellular NPs induce the next round of ROS bursts. Overburdened ROS lead to the rupturing of the membranes of organelles, the leakage of the organelles’ contents [52, 123], the inactivation of cell receptors [124], the release of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and further irreversible cell damage [125].

ROS Attacks Proteins and Results in Functional Inactivation

ROS attacks the hydrophobic residues of amino acids, contributing to the breakage of peptide bonds and interfering with the function of these proteins [126128]. Carbonylation is another feature of proteins subjected to oxidative damage [129]. Carbonylated proteins form aggregates that are chemically irreversible and cannot be degraded via proteasomes, leading to the permanent loss of function in these proteins [130, 131]. Gurunathan et al. [132] showed that PtNPs could enhance the generation of ROS and increase carbonylated protein levels, which inhibited osteosarcoma proliferation and contributed to apoptosis. In one case, combustion and friction-derived nanoparticles (CFDNPs) had accumulated in the brain of young adults with Alzheimer’s disease, which likely promoted ROS generation, resulting in protein misfolding, aggregation, and fibrillation [133]. Furthermore, Pelgrift et al. showed that Mg NPs may inhibit gene transcription or damage proteins directly [10].

ROS-Induced Gene Mutation

Nucleic acids, including DNA and RNA, are essential to cell function, growth, and development, and their component nucleotides are vulnerable targets of ROS [134136]. Due to their low redox potential, ROS can directly react with nucleobases and modify them [137]. For example, ROS could oxidize guanine to 8-oxo-7,8 dihydroguanine (8-oxoG) [138] and adenine to 1,2-dihydro-2-oxoadenine (2-oxoA) [139]. These base modifications lead to DNA damage [140]. Because of their genotoxic potential and their capacity to induce ROS formation [141], NPs significantly induce single- and double-strand DNA breakages [142, 143], chromosome damage, and aneuploid genic events [144].

The increased production of ROS is the main cause of gene miscoding, aneuploidy, polyploidy, and the activation of mutagenesis in cells exposed to NPs [145148]. Among the nucleotide pools, guanine is the most vulnerable and is easily oxidized to 8-oxoG by ROS [149]. The increased level of 8-oxo-dG in DNA results in the mismatch of DNA bases [150]. Similarly, the incorporation of A:8-oxoG causes an increased rate of G:C > T:A deleterious transversion mutations [151, 152]. The ratio of G:C > T:A transversion to G:C > A:T transition mutation has also been used as an index to quantify the oxidative DNA damage [153].

The generation of ROS induced by NPs resulted in the accumulation of DNA damage, which drives the development of mutagenicity [154], oncogenesis [155], multidrug resistance [156, 157], aging, and immune escape [158]. Jin et al. showed that the overproduction of ROS dramatically increased mutagenesis of DNA-binding transcriptional regulator genes, which resulted in an expedited antibiotic efflux [159], which in turn promotes the multiple-antibiotic resistance of bacteria [34]. Giannoni et al. reported that mitochondrial DNA mutations occurred with increasing intracellular ROS and further damaged the activity of ETC complex I and resulted in mitochondrial dysfunction [160, 161].

DNA damage induced by NPs has been shown to inhibit amino acid synthesis, replication [162], and cause the aberrant accumulation of p53 [163] and Rab51 proteins [82, 142]. DNA damage may also delay or fully arrest the cell [164]. Cells with damaged DNA lose the capacity for growth and proliferation [165] and may eventually result in cell death [166] (Fig. 3).

Cellular events induced by NPs. ① NPs contribute to the destruction of the cell membrane and to lipid peroxidation. ② The lysosomal membrane is destroyed by NPs and results in the release of their contents. ③ The mitochondrial membrane is damaged by NPs, leading to content release. NPs reduce the generation of ATP and increase the production of ROS. ④ The ROS induced by NPs results in the mistranslation of RNA. ⑤ NPs prevent the binding of tRNA to the ribosome. ⑥ The ROS induced by NPs result in the polymerization of proteins and DNA. ⑦ The ROS induced by NPs leads to DNA mutations ⑧ The nuclear membrane is destroyed by NPs, resulting in the release of its contents
Fig. 3
Cellular events induced by NPs. ① NPs contribute to the destruction of the cell membrane and to lipid peroxidation. ② The lysosomal membrane is destroyed by NPs and results in the release of their contents. ③ The mitochondrial membrane is damaged by NPs, leading to content release. NPs reduce the generation of ATP and increase the production of ROS. ④ The ROS induced by NPs results in the mistranslation of RNA. ⑤ NPs prevent the binding of tRNA to the ribosome. ⑥ The ROS induced by NPs result in the polymerization of proteins and DNA. ⑦ The ROS induced by NPs leads to DNA mutations ⑧ The nuclear membrane is destroyed by NPs, resulting in the release of its contents

Increased Production of ROS Induces Cell Damage and Disease Occurrence

NP cytotoxicity is associated with oxidative stress, endogenous ROS production, and the depletion of the intracellular antioxidant pools. The increased oxidative stress leads to oxidative damage to biomacromolecules, which further affects the normal functioning of the cell and contributes to the occurrence and development of various diseases [167].

NPs induce membrane damage and enhance the transport of NPs into the cytoplasm. NPs concentrate in lysosomes, mitochondria, and the nucleus, which results in catastrophic consequences for the cell [168, 169]. It has been reported that NPs can reduce adenosine triphosphate (ATP) generation [89], deplete glutathione, induce protein mistranslation [170], rupture lysosomes [171], and inhibit the ribosomal subunit from binding transfer RNA (tRNA). These cellular events indicate a collapse of the fundamental biological process in the cell and lead to a significant decrease in cell viability [47]. Singh and Scherz-Shouval et al. reported that NPs could disturb cytoskeletal functions by inducing ROS generation and activate the process of autophagic and apoptosis in cells [89].

NPs enter the body via different routes, for instance through the skin, lungs, or intestinal tract (Fig. 4a) and can have a wide variety of toxicological effects and induce biological responses such as inflammation and immune responses [172174]. In one case, exposure of cells to silica NPs caused macrophages to secrete a large amounts of interleukin-1β (IL-1β), which ultimately resulted in cell death [175]. Gao and colleagues reported that pulmonary inflammation was considerably higher in mice after exposure to carbon nanotubes, which could activate alveolar macrophages and induce a strong inflammatory response [176]. In another study, guinea pigs exposed to ZnO NPs suffered pulmonary damage, which leads to a decrease in total lung capacity and vital capacity [177179].

NP entrance into and damage of organs. a NPs could enter into the organisms through the oral cavity, nasal cavity, respiratory tract, kidneys, and intestinal tract; b NPs could spread by systemic circulation and accumulate in the kidneys, liver, heart, brain, intestinal tract, and lungs, leading to organ dysfunction (This figure was created in BioRender.com).
Fig. 4
NP entrance into and damage of organs. a NPs could enter into the organisms through the oral cavity, nasal cavity, respiratory tract, kidneys, and intestinal tract; b NPs could spread by systemic circulation and accumulate in the kidneys, liver, heart, brain, intestinal tract, and lungs, leading to organ dysfunction (This figure was created in BioRender.com).

ZnO NPs also induced severe injuries in the alveolar epithelial barrier and caused inflammation in the human lungs [180]. In another case, NPs absorbed into the intestines caused the inflammation and degradation of the intestinal mucosa [181]. Shubayev et al. noted that Mg NPs enhanced the migration of macrophages to the nervous system by degrading the blood-brain and blood-nerve barriers in an MMP-dependent manner [182]. Furthermore, mice which inhaled carbon nanotubes exhibited immunosuppression and repressed antibody response in naive spleen cells [183]. Finally, Cd NPs caused a severe decrease in blood monocyte viability, ultimately resulting in immunodeficiency [184].

In addition to the above pathologies, the highly variable level of ROS has been identified as the main cause of the development of numerous human diseases. Tretyakova and Liou et al. showed that oxidized DNA tends to form DNA-protein conjugates, which accumulate in the heart and brain and contribute to the occurrence of cancer, aging-related diseases, and chronic inflammation [185, 186]. Andersen [187] concluded that diabetes, as well as cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, were highly related to the imbalance of ROS. Additionally, Pérez-Rosés et al. showed that increased ROS promoted Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease development [188].

It has been further reported that NPs promote the apoptosis of breast cancer cells [35] and destroy malignant tissues and pathogens by promoting the generation of ROS [189, 190]. However, ROS has also been found to induce the proliferation of both normal and cancerous cells, stimulating mutations, and initiating carcinogenesis in normal cells and multidrug resistance in cancerous cells [191, 192]. Handy et al. found that fish exposed to carbon nanotubes exhibited granulomas in their lungs and tumors in their livers with extended exposure times [193]. Some NPs have caused multiple organ failure, primarily affecting the heart, lung, kidneys, and liver. TiO2 NPs have been shown to promote reduced body weight, spleen lesions, blood clotting in the respiratory system, necrosis and fibrosis in liver cells, and in alveolar septal incrassation [194, 195]. In one study, NPs also prevented stem cell differentiation, which aggravated organ damage [196]. Further research has also reported that NPs decreased sperm quality [197] and that exposure of sperm to carbon NPs influenced their ability to fertilize eggs and impaired the development of the embryos in purple sea urchins [198]. Mounting evidence shows the toxicological effects of NPs on microorganisms, algae, nematode, plants, animals, and humans specifically [22, 199, 200] (Fig. 4b).

The New Type of NPs with Fewer or No Cytotoxicity

NPs possess a range of biomedical properties that make them valuable (e.g., as antibacterial and anticancer agents [2628]). Their main mode of action is their ability to increase the production of ROS in cells; however, this property also makes these particles toxic, by causing gene mutation, apoptosis, and even carcinogenesis [45, 49, 58]. Consequently, there is an urgent need to develop new NPs which retain their required properties without leading to excessive ROS production. Recent studies have reported on novel types of NPs which could remove intracellular ROS. These types fall into two classes: (1) NPs which can scavenge ROS [77] and (2) NPs which are coated with additional materials to decrease their cytotoxicity [87].

Panikkanvalappil and colleagues showed that Pt NPs inhibit the double-strand breakage of DNA by degrading ROS [201]. In another case, Mn3O4 NPs modulated cellular redox resulting in the protection of biomacromolecules against oxidative stress [77]. Furthermore, the CeO2 NP is a novel agent that protects cells and tissues against oxidative damage with its free radical-scavenging capacity [79, 202].

H2O2 is the main by-product of NP-cell interactions. H2O2 destroys important biomolecules including proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids. However, when cells were treated with specialized MNPs coated with mercaptopropionic acid (MPA-NPs) or aminated silica (SiO2 -MNPs), such damage was not observed [203, 204]. Similarly, GO coated with polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) has fewer toxic effects on dendritic cell (DCs), T-lymphocytes, and macrophages than without this coating. PVP-GO has been shown to reduce the apoptosis of T-lymphocytes and even increase the activity of macrophages [205]. Pt-coated AuNRs (PtAuNRs) retain the efficacy of traditional gold nanorods (AuNR) and can trigger cell death of desired cells while scavenging the ROS, thereby protecting healthy, untreated cells from the indirect death induced by ROS production [87].

Conclusions and Outlook

NPs that possess unique physicochemical properties (e.g., ultra-small size, large surface area to mass ratio, and high reactivity) make them highly desirable in different applications. Engineered NPs for commercial purposes have been rapidly increasing. For that reason, the biosafety of NPs has gained more attention in the public. In this review, we summarized the mechanisms and responsible for ROS formation by NPs at the cellular level as well as recent advances of ROS-related NP toxicity in the biomedical field and highlighted the emerging field of cell-friendly NPs. The generation of ROS induced by NPs associated with their size, morphology, surface area, and component. In addition, ROS has bio-multifunctional in cell biology and biomedicine as well as the key mediator of cellular signaling, including cell apoptosis, viability, and differentiation.

However, to improve the biosafety of NPs and accelerate their use in the biomedical field, some bottlenecks need to be overcome and much work is still required. First, it is expected that high-throughput methods (HTMs) are designed to efficiently detect the biotoxicity of NPs in vitro and in vivo. HTMs could save time and resources, combine multiple parameters on a single system, and minimize methodological or systematic errors. It also would offer a deep understanding of the relationship between NP properties and cell responses, which could help us identify the optimal condition.

Second, the molecular and cellular mechanisms related to the biotoxicity of NP-induced ROS are still unclear. There is a demand to further explore the mechanisms associated with the formation of ROS by NPs, which would provide more information to modify the chemico-physico features of NPs to control the ROS generation. This could help researchers develop novel strategies to reduce the hazards of engineered NPs for accelerating their clinical and commercial translation in the biomedical filed.

Finally, due to their structural characteristics, NPs may enter the body freely via multiple routes, and the accumulation of NPs in the body can induce inflammation and immune responses, which result in cell injury or death, organ dysfunction, and ultimately stimulate the occurrence of numerous diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, liver inflammation, and dysembryoplasia. These issues have become more pressing with the widespread use of NPs.

Abbreviations

•OH

Hydroxyl radical

2-oxoA

1,2-Dihydro-2-oxoadenine

8-oxoG

8-oxo-7,8 dihydroguanine

Ag NPs

Silver nanoparticles

AP-1

Transcription factor activator protein-1

ATP

Adenosine triphosphate

AuNR

Gold nanorods

CFDNPs

Combustion and friction-derived nanoparticles

DCs

Dendritic cells

D-NP

Day flower-mimicking metallic nanoparticles

EGF

Epidermal growth factor

ER

Endoplasmic reticulum

ETC

Mitochondrial electron transport chain

Fe3O4-PEG-G5-MMP2@Ce6

Fe3O4-polyethylene glycol-polyamide-amine-matrix metalloproteinase2@ chlorin e6

H2O2

Hydrogen peroxide

HS-Fe-PEG-HER2 NPs

Hollow silica-Fe-polyethylene glycol-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 nanoparticles

LDH

Lactate dehydrogenase

MMP

Mitochondrial membrane potentials

MPA-NPs

MNPs coated with mercaptopropionic acid

NADP+/NADPH

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidized/reduced

NF-κB

Nuclear factor-κB

N-NP

Night flower-mimicking metallic nanoparticles

NPs

Nanoparticles

O2-

Reactive superoxide anion radical

pDNA-PEI-CeO NPs

pDNA-polyethylenimine CeO nanoparticles

PtAuNRs

Pt-coated AuNRs

PVP

Polyvinylpyrrolidone

ROS

Reactive oxygen species

SiO2-MNPs

MNPs with aminated silica

tRNA

Transfer RNA

Notes

Publisher’s Note:

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 31900957, 31671447, 31430041, 91849209), Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. ZR2019QC007), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2019M652326), Innovation and Technology Program for the Excellent Youth Scholars of Higher Education of Shandong Province (Grant No. 2019KJE015), and the Scientific Research Foundation of Qingdao University (Grant No. DC1900009689).

Authors’ Contributions

Project administration, Zhongjie Yu and Peifeng Li; writing—original draft preparation, Zhongjie Yu, Qi Li, Jing Wang, and Yin Wang; writing—review and editing, Zhongjie Yu and Qihui Zhou; funding acquisition, Qihui Zhou, Yin Wang, and Peifeng Li. The authors have read and agreed to the published final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This review was supported by Prof. Yin Wang, Qihui Zhou, and Peifeng Li.

Availability of Data and Materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1. 

    Tang B, Wang J, Xu S, Afrin T, Xu W, Sun L, Xungai W. Application of anisotropic silver nanoparticles: multifunctionalization of wool fabric. J Colloid Interface Sci 2011. 356: , pp.513-518

2. 

    Chaloupka K, Malam Y. AM. S. Nanosilver as a new generation of nanoproduct in biomedical applications. Trends Biotechnol 2010. 28: , pp.580-588

3. 

    Haiping T, Zhizhen Y, Zhu L, He H, Binghui Z, Yang Z, Mingjia Z, Zhixiang Y. Synthesis of radial ZnO nanostructures by a simple thermal evaporation method. Phys E 2008. 40: , pp.507-511

4. 

    Ghamsari MS, Vafaee M. Sol–gel derived zinc oxide buffer layer for use in random laser media. Mater Lett 2008. 62: , pp.1754-1756

5. 

    Lee S-H, Deshpande R, Benhammou D, Parilla PA, Mahan AH, Dillon AC. Metal oxide nanoparticles for advanced energy applications. Thin Solid Films 2009. 517: , pp.3591-3595

6. 

    Talapin DV, Lee J-S, Kovalenko MV, Shevchenko EV. Prospects of colloidal nanocrystals for electronic and optoelectronic applications. Chem Rev 2010. 110: , pp.389-458

7. 

    Luo X, Morrin A, Killard AJ, Smyth MR. Application of nanoparticles in electrochemical sensors and biosensors. Electroanalysis. 2006. 18: , pp.319-326

8. 

    Silva AT, Nguyen A, Ye C, Verchot J, Moon JH. Conjugated polymer nanoparticles for effective siRNA delivery to tobacco BY-2 protoplasts. BMC Plant Biol 2010. 10: , pp.291

9. 

    Jain TK, Morales MA, Sahoo SK, Leslie-Pelecky DL, Labhasetwar V. Iron oxide nanoparticles for sustained delivery of anticancer agents. Mol Pharm 2005. 2: , pp.194-205

10. 

    Pelgrift RY, Friedman AJ. Nanotechnology as a therapeutic tool to combat microbial resistance. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2013. 65: , pp.1803-1815

11. 

    Mirkin CA, Thaxton CS, Rosi NL. Nanostructures in biodefense and molecular diagnostics. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2004. 4: , pp.749-751

12. 

    Duan M, Xia F, Li T, Shapter JG, Yang S, Li Y, Gao G, Cui D. Matrix metalloproteinase-2-targeted superparamagnetic Fe3O4-PEG-G5-MMP2@Ce6 nanoprobes for dual-mode imaging and photodynamic therapy. Nanoscale. 2019. 11: , pp.18426-18435

13. 

    Hasanzadeh L, Darroudi M, Ramezanian N, Zamani P, Aghaee-Bakhtiari SH, Nourmohammadi E, Kazemi OR. Polyethylenimine-associated cerium oxide nanoparticles: a novel promising gene delivery vector. Life Sci 2019. 232: , pp.116661

14. 

    Li X, Xia S, Zhou W, Ji R, Zhan W. Targeted Fe-doped silica nanoparticles as a novel ultrasound-magnetic resonance dual-mode imaging contrast agent for HER2-positive breast cancer. Int J Nanomedicine 2019. 14: , pp.2397-2413

15. 

    Siemer S, Westmeier D, Barz M, Eckrich J, Wunsch D, Seckert C, Thyssen C, Schilling O, Hasenberg M, Pang C, Docter D, Knauer SK, Stauber RH, Strieth S. Biomolecule-corona formation confers resistance of bacteria to nanoparticle-induced killing: implications for the design of improved nanoantibiotics. Biomaterials. 2019. 192: , pp.551-559

16. 

    Song MF, Li YS, Kasai H, Kawai K. Metal nanoparticle-induced micronuclei and oxidative DNA damage in mice. J Clin Biochem Nutr 2012. 50: , pp.211-216

17. 

    Patlolla AK, Hackett D, Tchounwou PB. Silver nanoparticle-induced oxidative stress-dependent toxicity in Sprague-Dawley rats. Mol Cell Biochem 2015. 399: , pp.257-268

18. 

    AshaRani PV, Low Kah Mun G, Hande MP, Valiyaveettil S. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in human cells. ACS Nano 2009. 24: , pp.279-290

19. 

    Lee YH, Cheng FY, Chiu HW, Tsai JC, Fang CY, Chen CW, Wang YJ. Cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, apoptosis and the autophagic effects of silver nanoparticles in mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Biomaterials. 2014. 35: , pp.4706-4715

20. 

    Akter M, Sikder MT, Rahman MM, Ullah A, Hossain KFB, Banik S, Hosokawa T, Saito T, Kurasaki M. A systematic review on silver nanoparticles-induced cytotoxicity: physicochemical properties and perspectives. J Adv Res 2018. 9: , pp.1-16

21. 

    Rajoria S, Rani S, Chaudhari D, Jain S, Gupta U. Glycine-poly-l-lactic acid copolymeric nanoparticles for the efficient delivery of bortezomib. Pharm Res 2019. 36: , pp.160

22. 

    Asharani P, Sethu S, Lim HK, Balaji G, Valiyaveettil S, Hande MP. Differential regulation of intracellular factors mediating cell cycle, DNA repair and inflammation following exposure to silver nanoparticles in human cells. Genome integrity 2012. 3: , pp.2

23. 

    Nel A, Xia T, Madler L, Li N. Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science. 2006. 311: , pp.622-627

24. 

    Gojova A, Guo B, Kota RS, Rutledge JC, Kennedy IM, AI. . B. Induction of inflammation in vascular endothelial cells by metal oxide nanoparticles: effect of particle composition. Environ Health Perspect 2007. 115: , pp.403-409

25. 

    Sayes CM, Gobin AM, Ausman KD, Mendez J, West JL, Colvin VL. Nano-C60 cytotoxicity is due to lipid peroxidation. Biomaterials. 2005. 26: , pp.7587-7595

26. 

    Zhang Q, Yang W, Man N, Zheng F, Shen Y, Sun K, Li Y, Long-Ping W. Autophagy-mediated chemosensitization in cancer cells by fullerene C60 nanocrystal. Autophagy 2009. 5: , pp.1107-1117

27. 

    Bosi S, Da Ros T, Spalluto G, Prato M. Fullerene derivatives: an attractive tool for biological applications. Eur J Med Chem 2003. 38: , pp.913-923

28. 

    Isakovic A, Markovic Z, Todorovic-Markovic B, Nikolic N, Vranjes-Djuric S, Mirkovic M, Dramicanin M, Harhaji L, Raicevic N, Nikolic Z, Trajkovic V. Distinct cytotoxic mechanisms of pristine versus hydroxylated fullerene. Toxicological sciences: an official journal of the Society of Toxicology 2006. 91: , pp.173-183

29. 

    Park SY, Lee CY, An HR, Kim H, Lee YC, Park EC, Chun HS, Yang HY, Choi SH, Kim HS, Kang KS, Park HG, Kim JP, Choi Y, Lee J, Lee HU. Advanced carbon dots via plasma-induced surface functionalization for fluorescent and bio-medical applications. Nanoscale. 2017. 9: , pp.9210-9217

30. 

    Lee AR, Lee SJ, Lee M, Nam M, Lee S, Choi J, Lee HJ, Kim DU, Hoe KL. Editor’s highlight: a genome-wide screening of target genes against silver nanoparticles in fission yeast. Toxicological sciences: an official journal of the Society of Toxicology 2018. 161: , pp.171-185

31. 

    Carlson C, Hussain SM, Schrand AM, Braydich-Stolle LK, Hess KLJR, JJ. . S. Unique cellular interaction of silver nanoparticles: size-dependent generation of reactive oxygen species. J Phys Chem B 2008. 112: , pp.13608-13619

32. 

    Wang G, Jin W, Qasim AM, Gao A, Peng X, Li W, Feng H, Chu PK. Antibacterial effects of titanium embedded with silver nanoparticles based on electron-transfer-induced reactive oxygen species. Biomaterials. 2017. 124: , pp.25-34

33. 

    Tomankova K, Horakova J, Harvanova M, Malina L, Soukupova J, Hradilova S, Kejlova K, Malohlava J, Licman L, Dvorakova M, Jirova D, Kolarova H. Reprint of: cytotoxicity, cell uptake and microscopic analysis of titanium dioxide and silver nanoparticles in vitro. Food and chemical toxicology: an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 2015. 85: , pp.20-30

34. 

    Kaweeteerawat C, Na Ubol P, Sangmuang S, Aueviriyavit S, Maniratanachote R. Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in bacteria mediated by silver nanoparticles. Journal of toxicology and environmental health Part A 2017. 80: , pp.1276-1289

35. 

    Farah MA, Ali MA, Chen SM, Li Y, Al-Hemaid FM, Abou-Tarboush FM, Al-Anazi KM, Lee J. Silver nanoparticles synthesized from Adenium obesum leaf extract induced DNA damage, apoptosis and autophagy via generation of reactive oxygen species. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 2016. 141: , pp.158-169

36. 

    Ahmed B, Hashmi A, Khan MS, Musarrat J. ROS mediated destruction of cell membrane, growth and biofilms of human bacterial pathogens by stable metallic AgNPs functionalized from bell pepper extract and quercetin. Adv Powder Technol 2018. 29: , pp.1601-1616

37. 

    Wang Y, Wan J, Miron RJ, Zhao Y, Zhang Y. Antibacterial property and mechanisms of gold-silver nanocage. Nanoscale 2016. 8: , pp.11143-11152

38. 

    Memarzadeh K, Sharili AS, Huang J, Rawlinson SC, Allaker RP. Nanoparticulate zinc oxide as a coating material for orthopedic and dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res A 2015. 103: , pp.981-989

39. 

    Zheng X, Wu R, Chen Y. Effects of ZnO nanoparticles on wastewater biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Environ Sci Technol 2011. 45: , pp.2826-2832

40. 

    Verma SK, Jha E, Panda PK, Das JK, Thirumurugan A, Suar M, Parashar S. Molecular aspects of core-shell intrinsic defect induced enhanced antibacterial activity of ZnO nanocrystals. Nanomedicine (London) 2018. 13: , pp.43-68

41. 

    Sirelkhatim A, Mahmud S, Seeni A, Kaus NHM, Ann LC, Bakhori SKM, Hasan H, Mohamad D. Review on zinc oxide nanoparticles: antibacterial activity and toxicity mechanism. Nano Lett 2015. 7: , pp.219-242

42. 

    Krol A, Pomastowski P, Rafinska K, Railean-Plugaru V, Buszewski B. Zinc oxide nanoparticles: synthesis, antiseptic activity and toxicity mechanism. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 2017. 249: , pp.37-52

43. 

    Valdiglesias V, Costa C, Kilic G, Costa S, Pasaro E, Laffon B, Teixeira JP. Neuronal cytotoxicity and genotoxicity induced by zinc oxide nanoparticles. Environ Int 2013. 55: , pp.92-100

44. 

    Brunner TJ, Wick P, Manser P, Spohn P, Grass RN, Limbach LK, Bruinink A, Stark WJ. In vitro cytotoxicity of oxide nanoparticles: comparison to asbestos, silica, and the effect of particle solubility. Environ Sci Technol 2006. 50: , pp.4374-4381

45. 

    Singh N, Manshian B, Jenkins GJ, Griffiths SM, Williams PM, Maffeis TG, Wright CJ, Doak SH. NanoGenotoxicology: the DNA damaging potential of engineered nanomaterials. Biomaterials. 2009. 30: , pp.3891-3914

46. 

    Li T, Li F, Xiang W, Yi Y, Chen Y, Cheng L, Liu Z, Xu H. Selenium-containing amphiphiles reduced and stabilized gold nanoparticles: kill cancer cells via reactive oxygen species. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2016. 8: , pp.22106-22112

47. 

    Cui Y, Zhao Y, Tian Y, Zhang W, Lu X, Jiang X. The molecular mechanism of action of bactericidal gold nanoparticles on Escherichia coli. Biomaterials. 2012. 33: , pp.2327-2333

48. 

    Dizaj SM, Lotfipour F, Barzegar-Jalali M, Zarrintan MH, Adibkia K. Antimicrobial activity of the metals and metal oxide nanoparticles. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2014. 44: , pp.278-284

49. 

    Krishnamoorthy K, Moon JY, Hyun HB, Cho SK, Kim SJ. Mechanistic investigation on the toxicity of MgO nanoparticles toward cancer cells. J Mater Chem 2012. 22: , pp.24610

50. 

    Al-Shabib NA, Husain FM, Ahmed F, Khan RA, Khan MS, Ansari FA, Alam MZ, Ahmed MA, Khan MS, Baig MH, Khan JM, Shahzad SA, Arshad M, Alyousef A, Ahmad I. Low temperature synthesis of superparamagnetic iron oxide (Fe3O4) nanoparticles and their ROS mediated inhibition of biofilm formed by food-associated bacteria. Front Microbiol 2018. 9: , pp.2567

51. 

    Kauffer FA, Merlin C, Balan L, Schneider R. Incidence of the core composition on the stability, the ROS production and the toxicity of CdSe quantum dots. J Hazard Mater 2014. 268: , pp.246-255

52. 

    Maness PC, Smolinski S, Blake DM, Huang Z, Wolfrum EJ, WA. . J. Bactericidal activity of photocatalytic TiO(2) reaction: toward an understanding of its killing mechanism. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999. 65: , pp.4094-4098

53. 

    Blecher K, Nasir A, Friedman A. The growing role of nanotechnology in combating infectious disease. Virulence. 2011. 2: , pp.395-401

54. 

    Skocaj M, Filipic M, Petkovic J, Novak S. Titanium dioxide in our everyday life; is it safe?. Radiol Oncol 2011. 45: , pp.227-247

55. 

    Botelho MC, Costa C, Silva S, Costa S, Dhawan A, Oliveira PA, Teixeira JP. Effects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in human gastric epithelial cells in vitro. Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie 2014. 68: , pp.59-64

56. 

    Huang S, Chueh PJ, Lin YW, Shih TS, Chuang SM. Disturbed mitotic progression and genome segregation are involved in cell transformation mediated by nano-TiO2 long-term exposure. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2009. 241: , pp.182-194

57. 

    Freyre-Fonseca V, Delgado-Buenrostro NL, Gutierrez-Cirlos EB, Calderon-Torres CM, Cabellos-Avelar T, Sanchez-Perez Y, Pinzon E, Torres I, Molina-Jijon E, Zazueta C, Pedraza-Chaverri J, Garcia-Cuellar CM, Chirino YI. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles impair lung mitochondrial function. Toxicol Lett 2011. 202: , pp.111-119

58. 

    Zhang Y, Gu AZ, Xie S, Li X, Cen T, Li D, Chen J. Nano-metal oxides induce antimicrobial resistance via radical-mediated mutagenesis. Environ Int 2018. 121: , pp.1162-1171

59. 

Xu B, Liu Y, Yuan J, Wang P, Wang Q (2018) Synthesis, characterization, and antifogging application of polymer/Al(2)O(3) nanocomposite hydrogels with high strength and self-healing capacity. Polymers. 10

60. 

    Li J, Zhou H, Wang J, Wang D, Shen R, Zhang X, Jin P, Liu X. Oxidative stress-mediated selective antimicrobial ability of nano-VO2 against Gram-positive bacteria for environmental and biomedical applications. Nanoscale 2016. 8: , pp.11907-11923

61. 

WS Xi, H Tang, YY Liu, CY Liu, YF Gao , A Cao, YF Liu, Z Chen, HF Wang. Cytotoxicity of vanadium oxide nanoparticles and titanium dioxide-coated vanadium oxide nanoparticles to human lung cells. Journal of applied toxicology: JAT. 2019.

62. 

    Raj S, Kumar S, Chatterjee K. Facile synthesis of vanadia nanoparticles and assessment of antibacterial activity and cytotoxicity. Mater Technol 2016. 31: , pp.562-573

63. 

    Wang D, Zhao L, Ma H, Zhang H, Guo L-H. Quantitative analysis of reactive oxygen species photogenerated on metal oxide nanoparticles and their bacteria toxicity: the role of superoxide radicals. Environ Sci Technol 2017. 51: , pp.10137-10145

64. 

    Park SC, Kim NH, Yang W, Nah JW, Jang MK, Lee D. Polymeric micellar nanoplatforms for Fenton reaction as a new class of antibacterial agents. Journal of controlled release: official journal of the Controlled Release Society 2016. 221: , pp.37-47

65. 

    Iqbal G, Faisal S, Khan S, Shams DF, Nadhman A. Photo-inactivation and efflux pump inhibition of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus using thiolated cobalt doped ZnO nanoparticles. J Photochem Photobiol B 2019. 192: , pp.141-146

66. 

    Wang C, Cui Q, Wang X, Li L. Preparation of hybrid gold/polymer nanocomposites and their application in a controlled antibacterial assay. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2016. 8: , pp.29101-29109

67. 

    Yazdanbakhsh AR, Rafiee M, Daraei H, Amoozegar MA. Responses of flocculated activated sludge to bimetallic Ag-Fe nanoparticles toxicity: performance, activity enzymatic, and bacterial community shift. J Hazard Mater 2019. 366: , pp.114-123

68. 

    Davaeifar S, Modarresi MH, Mohammadi M, Hashemi E, Shafiei M, Maleki H, Vali H, Zahiri HS, Noghabi KA. Synthesizing, characterizing, and toxicity evaluating of phycocyanin-ZnO nanorod composites: a back to nature approaches. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 2019. 175: , pp.221-230

69. 

    Jiang J, Zhang C, Zeng GM, Gong JL, Chang YN, Song B, Deng CH, Liu HY. The disinfection performance and mechanisms of Ag/lysozyme nanoparticles supported with montmorillonite clay. J Hazard Mater 2016. 317: , pp.416-429

70. 

    Hsu SH, Lin YY, Huang S, Lem KW, Nguyen DH, Lee DS. Synthesis of water-dispersible zinc oxide quantum dots with antibacterial activity and low cytotoxicity for cell labeling. Nanotechnology. 2013. 24: , pp.475102

71. 

    Hossain ST, Mukherjee SK. Toxicity of cadmium sulfide (CdS) nanoparticles against Escherichia coli and HeLa cells. J Hazard Mater 2013. 260: , pp.1073-1082

72. 

    Ambrosone A, Mattera L, Marchesano V, Quarta A, Susha AS, Tino A, Rogach AL, Tortiglione C. Mechanisms underlying toxicity induced by CdTe quantum dots determined in an invertebrate model organism. Biomaterials. 2012. 33: , pp.1991-2000

73. 

    Moussa H, Merlin C, Dezanet C, Balan L, Medjahdi G, Ben-Attia M, Schneider R. Trace amounts of Cu(2)(+) ions influence ROS production and cytotoxicity of ZnO quantum dots. J Hazard Mater 2016. 304: , pp.532-542

74. 

    Gallo A, Manfra L, Boni R, Rotini A, Migliore L, Tosti E. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of CuO nanoparticles in sea urchin spermatozoa through oxidative stress. Environ Int 2018. 118: , pp.325-333

75. 

    Buffet PE, Richard M, Caupos F, Vergnoux A, Perrein-Ettajani H, Luna-Acosta A, Akcha F, Amiard JC, Amiard-Triquet C, Guibbolini M, Risso-De Faverney C, Thomas-Guyon H, Reip P, Dybowska A, Berhanu D, Valsami-Jones E, Mouneyrac C. A mesocosm study of fate and effects of CuO nanoparticles on endobenthic species (Scrobicularia plana, Hediste diversicolor). Environ Sci Technol 2013. 47: , pp.1620-1628

76. 

    Applerot G, Lellouche J, Lipovsky A, Nitzan Y, Lubart R, Gedanken A, Banin E. Understanding the antibacterial mechanism of CuO nanoparticles: revealing the route of induced oxidative stress. Small. 2012. 8: , pp.3326-3337

77. 

    Singh N, Savanur MA, Srivastava S, D'Silva P, Govindasamy M. A manganese oxide nanozyme prevents oxidative damage of biomolecules without affecting the endogenous antioxidant system. Nanoscale 2019. 11: , pp.3855-3863

78. 

    Karakoti AS, Singh S, Kumar A, Malinska M, Kuchibhatla SV, Wozniak K, Self WT, Seal S. PEGylated nanoceria as radical scavenger with tunable redox chemistry. J Am Chem Soc 2009. 131: , pp.14144-14145

79. 

    Rubio L, Annangi B, Vila L, Hernandez A, Marcos R. Antioxidant and anti-genotoxic properties of cerium oxide nanoparticles in a pulmonary-like cell system. Arch Toxicol 2016. 90: , pp.269-278

80. 

    Kadiyala NK, Mandal BK, Ranjan S, Dasgupta N. Bioinspired gold nanoparticles decorated reduced graphene oxide nanocomposite using Syzygium cumini seed extract: evaluation of its biological applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2018. 93: , pp.191-205

81. 

Wason MS, Lu H, Yu L, Lahiri SK, Mukherjee D, Shen C, Das S, Seal S, Zhao J (2018) Cerium oxide nanoparticles sensitize pancreatic cancer to radiation therapy through oxidative activation of the JNK apoptotic pathway. Cancers. 10

82. 

    Wang D, Zhu L, Chen JF, Dai L. Can graphene quantum dots cause DNA damage in cells?. Nanoscale. 2015. 7: , pp.9894-9901

83. 

    Nurunnabi M, Khatun Z, Reeck GR, Lee DY, Lee YK. Photoluminescent graphene nanoparticles for cancer phototherapy and imaging. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2014. 6: , pp.12413-12421

84. 

    Karlsson HL, Cronholm P, Gustafsson J, Lennart M. Copper oxide nanoparticles are highly toxic: a comparison between metal oxide nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes. Chem Res Toxicol 2008. 21: , pp.1726-1732

85. 

    Manna I, Bandyopadhyay M. Engineered nickel oxide nanoparticles affect genome stability in Allium cepa (L.). Plant physiology and biochemistry: PPB 2017. 121: , pp.206-215

86. 

    Angel Ezhilarasi A, Judith Vijaya J, Kaviyarasu K, John Kennedy L, Ramalingam RJ, Al-Lohedan HA. Green synthesis of NiO nanoparticles using Aegle marmelos leaf extract for the evaluation of in-vitro cytotoxicity, antibacterial and photocatalytic properties. J Photochem Photobiol B 2018. 180: , pp.39-50

87. 

    Aioub M, Panikkanvalappil SR, El-Sayed MA. Platinum-coated gold nanorods: efficient reactive oxygen scavengers that prevent oxidative damage toward healthy, untreated cells during plasmonic photothermal therapy. ACS Nano 2017. 11: , pp.579-586

88. 

    Pacurari M, Yin XJ, Zhao J, Ding M, Leonard SS, Schwegler-Berry D, Ducatman BS, Sbarra D, Hoover MD, Castranova V, Vallyathan V. Raw single-wall carbon nanotubes induce oxidative stress and activate MAPKs, AP-1, NF-kappaB, and Akt in normal and malignant human mesothelial cells. Environ Health Perspect 2008. 116: , pp.1211-1217

89. 

    Singh BR, Singh BN, Khan W, Singh HB, Naqvi AH. ROS-mediated apoptotic cell death in prostate cancer LNCaP cells induced by biosurfactant stabilized CdS quantum dots. Biomaterials. 2012. 33: , pp.5753-5767

90. 

    Li Y, Lin Z, Zhu B. Silver nanoparticles based codelivery of Oseltamivir to inhibit the activity of H1N1 influenza virus through ROS mediated signaling pathways. Workshop for Control of EID 2017. 2017: , pp.41

91. 

    Dai X, Zhao Y, Yu Y, Chen X, Wei X, Zhang X, Li C. Single continuous near-infrared laser-triggered photodynamic and photothermal ablation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria using effective targeted copper sulfide nanoclusters. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2017. 9: , pp.30470-30479

92. 

    Keren I, Wu Y, Inocencio J, Mulcahy LR, Kim L. Killing by bactericidal antibiotics does not depend on reactive oxygen species. Science. 2013. 339: , pp.1213-1216

93. 

    Boonstra J, Post JA. Molecular events associated with reactive oxygen species and cell cycle progression in mammalian cells. Gene. 2004. 337: , pp.1-13

94. 

    Murphy MP. How mitochondria produce reactive oxygen species. The Biochemical journal 2009. 417: , pp.1-13

95. 

    Liu Y, Imlay JA. Cell death from antibiotics without the involvement of reactive oxygen species. Science. 2013. 339: , pp.1210-1213

96. 

    Sena LA, Chandel NS. Physiological roles of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species. Mol Cell 2012. 48: , pp.158-167

97. 

    Shadel GS, Horvath TL. Mitochondrial ROS signaling in organismal homeostasis. Cell. 2015. 163: , pp.560-569

98. 

    Dröge W. Free radicals in the physiological control of cell function. Physiol Rev 2002. 82: , pp.47-95

99. 

    Holmstrom KM, Finkel T. Cellular mechanisms and physiological consequences of redox-dependent signalling. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2014. 15: , pp.411-421

100. 

    Xu S, Chisholm AD. C. elegans epidermal wounding induces a mitochondrial ROS burst that promotes wound repair. Dev Cell 2014. 31: , pp.48-60

101. 

    Schieber M, Chandel NS. TOR signaling couples oxygen sensing to lifespan in C. elegans. Cell Rep 2014. 9: , pp.9-15

102. 

    Johnson D, Allman E, Keith N. Regulation of acid-base transporters by reactive oxygen species following mitochondrial fragmentation. Am J Phys Cell Physiol 2012. 302: , pp.1045-1054

103. 

    West AP, Shadel GS, Ghosh S. Mitochondria in innate immune responses. Nat Rev Immunol 2011. 11: , pp.389-402

104. 

    Gaetke LM, Ching Kuang C. Copper toxicity, oxidative stress, and antioxidant nutrients. Toxicology. 2003. 189: , pp.147-163

105. 

    He W, Zhou YT, Wamer WG, Boudreau MD, Yin JJ. Mechanisms of the pH dependent generation of hydroxyl radicals and oxygen induced by Ag nanoparticles. Biomaterials. 2012. 33: , pp.7547-7555

106. 

    Li Y, Qin T, Ingle T, Yan J, He W, Yin JJ, Chen T. Differential genotoxicity mechanisms of silver nanoparticles and silver ions. Arch Toxicol 2017. 91: , pp.509-519

107. 

    Jiang W, Kim BY, Rutka JT, Chan WC. Nanoparticle-mediated cellular response is size-dependent. Nat Nanotechnol 2008. 3: , pp.145-150

108. 

    Holt KB, AJ. . B. Interaction of silver(I) ions with the respiratory chain of Escherichia coli: an electrochemical and scanning electrochemical microscopy study of the antimicrobial mechanism of micromolar Ag+. Biochemistry 2005. 44: , pp.13214-13223

109. 

    Kang SJ, Lee YJ, Lee E-K, Kwak M-K. Silver nanoparticles-mediated G2/M cycle arrest of renal epithelial cells is associated with NRF2-GSH signaling. Toxicol Lett 2012. 211: , pp.334-341

110. 

    Giorgio M, Migliaccio E, Orsini F, Paolucci D, Moroni M, Contursi C, Pelliccia G, Luzi L, Minucci S, Marcaccio M, Pinton P, Rizzuto R, Bernardi P, Paolucci F, Pelicci PG. Electron transfer between cytochrome c and p66Shc generates reactive oxygen species that trigger mitochondrial apoptosis. Cell. 2005. 122: , pp.221-233

111. 

    Lee J, Kwon ES, Kim DW, Cha J, Jung-Hye R. Regulation and the role of Cu,Zn-containing superoxide dismutase in cell cycle progression of Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2002. 297: , pp.854-862

112. 

    Yamada K, Nakagawa CW, Mutoh N. Schizosaccharomyces pombe homologue of glutathione peroxidase, which does not contain selenocysteine, is induced by several stresses and works as an antioxidant. Yeast 1999. 15: , pp.1125-1132

113. 

    Huang T, Holden JA, Heath DE, O'Brien-Simpson NM, O'Connor AJ. Engineering highly effective antimicrobial selenium nanoparticles through control of particle size. Nanoscale. 2019. 11: , pp.14937-14951

114. 

    Cho S, Lee B, Park W, Huang X, Kim DH. Photoperiodic flower mimicking metallic nanoparticles for image-guided medicine applications. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2018. 10: , pp.27570-27577

115. 

    Liao F, Chen L, Liu Y, Zhao D, Peng W, Wang W, Feng S. The size-dependent genotoxic potentials of titanium dioxide nanoparticles to endothelial cells. Environ Toxicol 2019. 34: , pp.1199-1207

116. 

Green M, Howman E (2005) Semiconductor quantum dots and free radical induced DNA nicking. Chem Commun:121–123

117. 

    Chen N, He Y, Su Y, Li X, Huang Q, Wang H, Zhang X, Tai R, Fan C. The cytotoxicity of cadmium-based quantum dots. Biomaterials. 2012. 33: , pp.1238-1244

118. 

    Roesslein M, Hirsch C, Kaiser JP, Krug HF, Wick P. Comparability of in vitro tests for bioactive nanoparticles: a common assay to detect reactive oxygen species as an example. Int J Mol Sci 2013. 14: , pp.24320-24337

119. 

    Valko M, Leibfritz D, Moncol J, Cronin MTD, Mazur M, Telser J. Free radicals and antioxidants in normal physiological functions and human disease. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 2007. 39: , pp.44-84

120. 

    Li Y, Zhang W, Niu J, Chen Y. Mechanism of photogenerated reactive oxygen species and correlation with the antibacterial properties of engineered metal-oxide nanoparticles. ACS Nano 2012. 6: , pp.5164-5173

121. 

    Applerot G, Lipovsky A, Dror R, Perkas N, Nitzan Y, Lubart R, Gedanken A. Enhanced antibacterial activity of nanocrystalline ZnO due to increased ROS-mediated cell injury. Adv Funct Mater 2009. 19: , pp.842-852

122. 

    Ma H, Williams PL, Diamond SA. Ecotoxicity of manufactured ZnO nanoparticles-a review. Environ Pollut 2013. 172: , pp.76-85

123. 

    Foster HA, Ditta IB, Varghese S, Steele A. Photocatalytic disinfection using titanium dioxide: spectrum and mechanism of antimicrobial activity. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2011. 90: , pp.1847-1868

124. 

    Hirano S, Kanno S, Furuyama A. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes injure the plasma membrane of macrophages. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2008. 232: , pp.244-251

125. 

    Gu L, Li Q, Quan X, Cen Y, Jiang X. Comparison of nanosilver removal by flocculent and granular sludge and short- and long-term inhibition impacts. Water Res 2014. 58: , pp.62-70

126. 

    Ahmad S, Khan H, Shahab U, Rehman S, Rafi Z, Khan MY, Ansari A, Siddiqui Z, Ashraf JM, Abdullah SM, Habib S, Moin U. Protein oxidation: an overview of metabolism of sulphur containing amino acid, cysteine. Front Biosci (Schol Ed) 2017. 9: , pp.71-87

127. 

    Stadtman ER, Levine RL. Free radical-mediated oxidation of free amino acids and amino acid residues in proteins. Amino Acids 2003. 25: , pp.207-218

128. 

    Murray Stewart T, Dunston TT, Woster PM, Casero RA. Polyamine catabolism and oxidative damage. J Biol Chem 2018. 293: , pp.18736-18745

129. 

    Nyström T. Role of oxidative carbonylation in protein quality control and senescence. EMBO J 2005. 24: , pp.1311-1317

130. 

    Amici A, Levine RL, Tsai L, Stadtman ER. Conversion of amino acid residues in proteins and amino acid homopolymers to carbonyl derivatives by metal-catalyzed oxidation reactions. J Biol Chem 1989. 264: , pp.3341-3346

131. 

    Dalle-Donne I, Aldini G, Carini M, Colombo R, Rossi R, Milzani A. Protein carbonylation, cellular dysfunction, and disease progression. J Cell Mol Med 2006. 10: , pp.389-406

132. 

    Gurunathan S, Jeyaraj M, Kang MH, Kim JH. Tangeretin-assisted platinum nanoparticles enhance the apoptotic properties of doxorubicin: combination therapy for osteosarcoma treatment. Nanomaterials (Basel) 2019. 9: , pp.1089

133. 

    Calderon-Garciduenas L, Reynoso-Robles R, Gonzalez-Maciel A. Combustion and friction-derived nanoparticles and industrial-sourced nanoparticles: The culprit of Alzheimer and Parkinson’s diseases. Environ Res 2019. 176: , pp.108574

134. 

    Imlay JA, S. L. . DNA damage and oxygen radical toxicity. Science. 1988. 240: , pp.1302-1309

135. 

    Maki HSM. MutT protein specifically hydrolyses a potent mutagenic substrate for DNA synthesis. Nature. 1992. 355: , pp.273-275

136. 

    Demple B, Harrison L. Repair of oxidative damage to DNA: enzymology and biology. Annu Rev Biochem 1994. 63: , pp.915-948

137. 

    Bjelland S, Seeberg E. Mutagenicity, toxicity and repair of DNA base damage induced by oxidation. Mutat Res 2003. 531: , pp.37-80

138. 

    Neeley WL, Essigmann JM. Mechanisms of formation, genotoxicity, and mutation of guanine oxidation products. Chem Res Toxicol 2006. 19: , pp.491-505

139. 

    Nunoshiba T, Obata F, Boss AC, Oikawa S, Mori T, Kawanishi S, Yamamoto K. Role of iron and superoxide for generation of hydroxyl radical, oxidative DNA lesions, and mutagenesis in Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem 1999. 274: , pp.34832-34837

140. 

    Chompoosor A, Saha K, Ghosh PS, Macarthy DJ, Miranda OR, Zhu ZJ, Arcaro KF, Rotello VM. The role of surface functionality on acute cytotoxicity, ROS generation and DNA damage by cationic gold nanoparticles. Small. 2010. 6: , pp.2246-2249

141. 

    Proquin H, Rodríguez-Ibarra C, Moonen C, Urrutia Ortega IM, Briedé JJ, de Kok TM, van Loveren H, Chirino YI. Titanium dioxide food additive (E171) induces ROS formation and genotoxicity: contribution of micro and nano-sized fractions. Mutagenesis 2018. 33: , pp.267-268

142. 

    Kang SJ, Kim BM, Lee YJ, Chung HW. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles trigger p53-mediated damage response in peripheral blood lymphocytes. Environ Mol Mutagen 2008. 49: , pp.399-405

143. 

    Kawanishi S, Hiraku Y, Murata M, Shinji O. The role of metals in site-specific DNA damage with reference to carcinogenesis. Free Radic Biol Med 2002. 32: , pp.822-832

144. 

    Di Bucchianico S, Fabbrizi MR, Cirillo S, Uboldi C, Gilliland D, Valsami-Jones E, Migliore L. Aneuploidogenic effects and DNA oxidation induced in vitro by differently sized gold nanoparticles. Int J Nanomedicine 2014. 9: , pp.2191-2204

145. 

    Levine AS, Sun L, Tan R, Gao Y, Yang L, Chen H, Teng Y, Lan L. The oxidative DNA damage response: a review of research undertaken with Tsinghua and Xiangya students at the University of Pittsburgh. Sci China Life Sci 2017. 60: , pp.1077-1080

146. 

    Jena NR. DNA damage by reactive species: mechanisms, mutation and repair. J Biosci 2012. 37: , pp.503-517

147. 

    Kirsch-Volders M, Vanhauwaert A, De Boeck M, Ilse D. Importance of detecting numerical versus structural chromosome aberrations. Mutat Res 2002. 504: , pp.137-148

148. 

    Mateuca R, Lombaert N, Aka PV, Decordier I, Kirsch-Volders M. Chromosomal changes: induction, detection methods and applicability in human biomonitoring. Biochimie. 2006. 88: , pp.1515-1531

149. 

    Belenky P, Ye JD, Porter CB, Cohen NR, Lobritz MA, Ferrante T, Jain S, Korry BJ, Schwarz EG, Walker GC, Collins JJ. Bactericidal antibiotics induce toxic metabolic perturbations that lead to cellular damage. Cell Rep 2015. 13: , pp.968-980

150. 

    Bridge G, Rashid S, Martin SA. DNA mismatch repair and oxidative DNA damage: implications for cancer biology and treatment. Cancers. 2014. 6: , pp.1597-1614

151. 

    Avkin S, Zvi L. Efficiency, specificity and DNA polymerase-dependence of translesion replication across the oxidative DNA lesion 8-oxoguanine in human cells. Mutat Res 2002. 510: , pp.81-90

152. 

    Foti JJ, Devadoss B, Winkler JA, Collins JJ, Walker GC. Oxidation of the guanine nucleotide pool underlies cell death by bactericidal antibiotics. Science. 2012. 336: , pp.315-319

153. 

    Wang ZY, Xiong M, Fu LY, Zhang HY. Oxidative DNA damage is important to the evolution of antibiotic resistance: evidence of mutation bias and its medicinal implications. J Biomol Struct Dyn 2013. 31: , pp.729-733

154. 

    Dufour EK, Kumaravel T, Nohynek GJ, Kirkland D, Toutain H. Clastogenicity, photo-clastogenicity or pseudo-photo-clastogenicity: genotoxic effects of zinc oxide in the dark, in pre-irradiated or simultaneously irradiated Chinese hamster ovary cells. Mutat Res 2006. 607: , pp.215-224

155. 

    Rusyn I, Asakura S, Pachkowski B, Bradford BU, Denissenko MF, Peters JM, Holland SM, Reddy JK, Cunningham ML, Swenberg JA. Expression of base excision DNA repair genes is a sensitive biomarker for in vivo detection of chemical-induced chronic oxidative stress: identification of the molecular source of radicals responsible for DNA damage by peroxisome proliferators. Cancer Res 2004. 64: , pp.1050-1057

156. 

    Koptyra M, Falinski R, Nowicki MO, Stoklosa T, Majsterek I, Nieborowska-Skorska M, Blasiak J, Skorski T. BCR/ABL kinase induces self-mutagenesis via reactive oxygen species to encode imatinib resistance. Blood. 2006. 108: , pp.319-327

157. 

    Pelicano H, Carney D, Huang P. ROS stress in cancer cells and therapeutic implications. Drug resistance updates: reviews and commentaries in antimicrobial and anticancer chemotherapy 2004. 7: , pp.97-110

158. 

    Smith KC. Spontaneous mutagenesis: experimental, genetic and other factors. Mutat Res 1992. 277: , pp.139-162

159. 

    Jin M, Lu J, Chen Z, Nguyen SH, Mao L, Li J, Yuan Z, Guo J. Antidepressant fluoxetine induces multiple antibiotics resistance in Escherichia coli via ROS-mediated mutagenesis. Environ Int 2018. 120: , pp.421-430

160. 

    Giannoni E, Fiaschi T, Ramponi G, Chiarugi P. Redox regulation of anoikis resistance of metastatic prostate cancer cells: key role for Src and EGFR-mediated pro-survival signals. Oncogene. 2009. 28: , pp.2074-2086

161. 

    Martin LJ. DNA damage and repair: relevance to mechanisms of neurodegeneration. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 2008. 67: , pp.377-387

162. 

    Huh AJ, Kwon YJ. “Nanoantibiotics”: a new paradigm for treating infectious diseases using nanomaterials in the antibiotics resistant era. Journal of controlled release: official journal of the Controlled Release Society 2011. 156: , pp.128-145

163. 

    Setyawati MI, Yuan X, Xie J, Leong DT. The influence of lysosomal stability of silver nanomaterials on their toxicity to human cells. Biomaterials. 2014. 35: , pp.6707-6715

164. 

    Ghosh M, Sinha S, Jothiramajayam M, Jana A, Nag A, Mukherjee A. Cyto-genotoxicity and oxidative stress induced by zinc oxide nanoparticle in human lymphocyte cells in vitro and Swiss albino male mice in vivo. Food and chemical toxicology: an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 2016. 97: , pp.286-296

165. 

    Li JJ, Yung LY, Hartono D, Bay BH, Zou L, Ong CN. Gold nanoparticles induce oxidative damage in lung fibroblasts in vitro. Adv Mater 2010. 20: , pp.138-142

166. 

    Li J, Song Y, Vogt RD, Liu Y, Luo J, Li T. Bioavailability and cytotoxicity of cerium- (IV), copper- (II), and zinc oxide nanoparticles to human intestinal and liver cells through food. Sci Total Environ 2019. 702: , pp.134700

167. 

    Pan Y, Leifert A, Ruau D, Neuss S, Bornemann J, Schmid G, Brandau W, Simon U, Jahnen-Dechent W. Gold nanoparticles of diameter 1.4 nm trigger necrosis by oxidative stress and mitochondrial damage. Small. 2009. 5: , pp.2067-2076

168. 

    Wang Z, Li N, Zhao J, White JC, Qu P, Xing B. CuO nanoparticle interaction with human epithelial cells: cellular uptake, location, export, and genotoxicity. Chem Res Toxicol 2012. 25: , pp.1512-1521

169. 

    Derfus AM, Chan WCW, Bhatia SN. Intracellular delivery of quantum dots for live cell labeling and organelle tracking. Adv Mater 2004. 16: , pp.961-966

170. 

    Al Mamun AAM, Gautam S, Humayun MZ. Hypermutagenesis in mutA cells is mediated by mistranslational corruption of polymerase, and is accompanied by replication fork collapse. Mol Microbiol 2006. 62: , pp.1752-1763

171. 

    Canesi L, Ciacci C, Fabbri R, Marcomini A, Pojana G, Gallo G. Bivalve molluscs as a unique target group for nanoparticle toxicity. Mar Environ Res 2012. 76: , pp.16-21

172. 

    Tiwari DK, Jin T, Behari J. Dose-dependent in-vivo toxicity assessment of silver nanoparticle in Wistar rats. Toxicol Mech Methods 2011. 21: , pp.13-24

173. 

    Shi J, Sun X, Lin Y, Zou X, Li Z, Liao Y, Du M, Zhang H. Endothelial cell injury and dysfunction induced by silver nanoparticles through oxidative stress via IKK/NF-kappaB pathways. Biomaterials. 2014. 35: , pp.6657-6666

174. 

    Mercer RR, Scabilloni J, Wang L, Kisin E, Murray AR, Schwegler-Berry D, Shvedova AA, Castranova V. Alteration of deposition pattern and pulmonary response as a result of improved dispersion of aspirated single-walled carbon nanotubes in a mouse model. Am J Phys Lung Cell Mol Phys 2008. 294: , pp.L87-L97

175. 

    Kusaka T, Nakayama M, Nakamura K, Ishimiya M, Furusawa E, Ogasawara K. Effect of silica particle size on macrophage inflammatory responses. PLoS One 2014. 9: , pp.e92634

176. 

    Gao N, Zhang Q, Mu Q, Bai Y, Li L, Zhou H, Butch ER, Powell TB, Snyder SE, Jiang G, Bing Y. Steering carbon nanotubes to scavenger receptor recognition by nanotube surface chemistry modification partially alleviates NFκB activation and reduces its immunotoxicity. ACS Nano 2011. 5: , pp.4581-4591

177. 

    Lam HF, Chen LC, Ainsworth D, Peoples S, Amdur MO. Pulmonary function of guinea pigs exposed to freshly generated ultrafine zinc oxide with and without spike concentrations. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1988. 49: , pp.333-341

178. 

    Lam HF, Conner MW, Rogers AE, Fitzgerald S, Amdur MO. Functional and morphologic changes in the lungs of guinea pigs exposed to freshly generated ultrafine zinc oxide. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1985. 78: , pp.29-38

179. 

    Conner MW, Flood WH, Rogers AE, Amdur MO. Lung injury in guinea pigs caused by multiple exposures to ultrafine zinc oxide: changes in pulmonary lavage fluid. J Toxicol Environ Health 1988. 25: , pp.57-69

180. 

    Kim YH, Fazlollahi F, Kennedy IM, Yacobi NR, Hamm-Alvarez SF, Borok Z, Kim KJ, Crandall ED. Alveolar epithelial cell injury due to zinc oxide nanoparticle exposure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010. 182: , pp.1398-1409

181. 

    Smith CJ, Shaw BJ, Handy RD. Toxicity of single walled carbon nanotubes to rainbow trout, (Oncorhynchus mykiss): respiratory toxicity, organ pathologies, and other physiological effects. Aquat Toxicol 2007. 82: , pp.94-109

182. 

    Shubayev VI, Pisanic TR, Jin S. Magnetic nanoparticles for theragnostics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2009. 61: , pp.467-477

183. 

    Mitchell LA, Lauer FT, Burchiel SW, McDonald JD. Mechanisms for how inhaled multiwalled carbon nanotubes suppress systemic immune function in mice. Nat Nanotechnol 2009. 4: , pp.451-456

184. 

    Bruneau A, Fortier M, Gagne F, Gagnon C, Turcotte P, Tayabali A, Davis TA, Auffret M, Fournier M. In vitro immunotoxicology of quantum dots and comparison with dissolved cadmium and tellurium. Environ Toxicol 2015. 30: , pp.9-25

185. 

    Tretyakova NY, Groehler A, Ji S. DNA-protein cross-links: formation, structural identities, and biological outcomes. Acc Chem Res 2015. 48: , pp.1631-1644

186. 

    Liou GY, Storz P. Reactive oxygen species in cancer. Free Radic Res 2010. 44: , pp.479-496

187. 

    Andersen JK. Oxidative stress in neurodegeneration: cause or consequence?. Nat Med 2004. 10: Suppl, pp.S18-S25

188. 

    Perez-Roses R, Risco E, Vila R, Penalver P, Canigueral S. Biological and nonbiological antioxidant activity of some essential oils. J Agric Food Chem 2016. 64: , pp.4716-4724

189. 

    Robertson CA, Evans DH, Abrahamse H. Photodynamic therapy (PDT): a short review on cellular mechanisms and cancer research applications for PDT. J Photochem Photobiol B 2009. 96: , pp.1-8

190. 

    Agostinis P, Berg K, Cengel KA, Foster TH, Girotti AW, Gollnick SO, Hahn SM, Hamblin MR, Juzeniene A, Kessel D, Korbelik M, Moan J, Mroz P, Nowis D, Piette J, Wilson BC, Golab J. Photodynamic therapy of cancer: an update. CA Cancer J Clin 2011. 61: , pp.250-281

191. 

    Mahalingaiah PK, Singh KP. Chronic oxidative stress increases growth and tumorigenic potential of MCF-7 breast cancer cells. PLoS One 2014. 9: , pp.e87371

192. 

    Gill JG, Piskounova E, Morrison SJ. Cancer, oxidative stress, and metastasis. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 2016. 81: , pp.163-175

193. 

    Handy RD, Shaw BJ. Toxic effects of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: implications for public health, risk assessment and the public perception of nanotechnology. Health Risk Soc 2007. 9: , pp.125-144

194. 

    Chen J, Dong X, Zhao J, Tang G. In vivo acute toxicity of titanium dioxide nanoparticles to mice after intraperitioneal injection. Journal of applied toxicology : JAT 2009. 29: , pp.330-337

195. 

    Hong J, Wang L, Zhao X, Yu X, Sheng L, Xu B, Liu D, Zhu Y, Long Y, Hong F. Th2 factors may be involved in TiO(2) NP-induced hepatic inflammation. J Agric Food Chem 2014. 62: , pp.6871-6878

196. 

    Park MV, Annema W, Salvati A, Lesniak A, Elsaesser A, Barnes C, McKerr G, Howard CV, Lynch I, Dawson KA, Piersma AH, de Jong WH. In vitro developmental toxicity test detects inhibition of stem cell differentiation by silica nanoparticles. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2009. 240: , pp.108-116

197. 

    Kadar E, Tarran GA, Jha AN, Al-Subiai SN. Stabilization of engineered zero-valent nanoiron with Na-acrylic copolymer enhances spermiotoxicity. Environ Sci Technol 2011. 45: , pp.3245-3251

198. 

    Mesaric T, Sepcic K, Drobne D, Makovec D, Faimali M, Morgana S, Falugi C, Gambardella C. Sperm exposure to carbon-based nanomaterials causes abnormalities in early development of purple sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus). Aquat Toxicol 2015. 163: , pp.158-166

199. 

    Roh JY, Sim SJ, Yi J, Park K, Chung KH, Ryu DY, Choi J. Ecotoxicity of silver nanoparticles on the soil nematode Caenorhabditis elegans using functional ecotoxicogenomics. Environ Sci Technol 2009. 43: , pp.3933-3940

200. 

    Ghosh M, Bandyopadhyay M, Mukherjee A. Genotoxicity of titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles at two trophic levels: plant and human lymphocytes. Chemosphere. 2010. 81: , pp.1253-1262

201. 

    Panikkanvalappil SR, Mahmoud MA, Mackey MA, El-Sayed MA. Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy for real-time monitoring of reactive oxygen species-induced DNA damage and its prevention by platinum nanoparticles. ACS Nano 2013. 7: , pp.7524-7533

202. 

    Tarnuzzer RW, Colon J, Patil S, Sudipta S. Vacancy engineered ceria nanostructures for protection from radiation-induced cellular damage. Nano Lett 2005. 5: , pp.2573-2577

203. 

    Rispail N, De Matteis L, Santos R, Miguel AS, Custardoy L, Testillano PS, Risueno MC, Perez-de-Luque A, Maycock C, Fevereiro P, Oliva A, Fernandez-Pacheco R, Ibarra MR, de la Fuente JM, Marquina C, Rubiales D, Prats E. Quantum dot and superparamagnetic nanoparticle interaction with pathogenic fungi: internalization and toxicity profile. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2014. 6: , pp.9100-9110

204. 

    Wu W, He Q, Jiang C. Magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: synthesis and surface functionalization strategies. Nanoscale Res Lett 2008. 3: , pp.397-415

205. 

    Zhi X, Fang H, Bao C, Shen G, Zhang J, Wang K, Guo S, Wan T, Cui D. The immunotoxicity of graphene oxides and the effect of PVP-coating. Biomaterials. 2013. 34: , pp.5254-5261
https://www.researchpad.co/tools/openurl?pubtype=article&doi=10.1186/s11671-020-03344-7&title=Reactive Oxygen Species-Related Nanoparticle Toxicity in the Biomedical Field&author=Zhongjie Yu,Qi Li,Jing Wang,Yali Yu,Yin Wang,Qihui Zhou,Peifeng Li,&keyword=Reactive oxygen species,Nanoparticles,Oxidative stress,Biotoxicity,&subject=Nano Review,