journal article·2017-12-26Open access

Characterizing Nanoparticles in Biological Matrices: Tipping Points in Agglomeration State and Cellular Delivery In Vitro

John W. Wills, Huw D. Summers, Nicole Hondow, Aishwarya Sooresh, Kenith E. Meissner, Paul A. White, Paul Rees, Andy Brown, Shareen H. Doak

ACS Nano· Volume 11· Issue 12

Abstract

Understanding the delivered cellular dose of nanoparticles is imperative in nanomedicine and nanosafety, yet is known to be extremely complex because of multiple interactions between nanoparticles, their environment, and the cells. Here, we use 3-D reconstruction of agglomerates preserved by cryogenic snapshot sampling and imaged by electron microscopy to quantify the "bioavailable dose" that is presented at the cell surface and formed by the process of individual nanoparticle sequestration into agglomerates in the exposure media. Critically, using 20 and 40 nm carboxylated polystyrene-latex and 16 and 85 nm silicon dioxide nanoparticles, we show that abrupt, dose-dependent "tipping points" in agglomeration state can arise, subsequently affecting cellular delivery and increasing toxicity. These changes are triggered by shifts in the ratio of the total nanoparticle surface area to biomolecule abundance, with the switch to a highly agglomerated state effectively changing the test article midassay, challenging the dose-response paradigm for nanosafety experiments. By characterizing nanoparticle numbers per agglomerate, we show these tipping points can lead to the formation of extreme agglomeration states whereby 90% of an administered dose is contained and delivered to the cells by just the top 2% of the largest agglomerates. We thus demonstrate precise definition, description, and comparison of the nanoparticle dose formed in different experimental environments and show that this description is critical to understanding cellular delivery and toxicity. We further empirically "stress-test" the commonly used dynamic light scattering approach, establishing its limitations to present an analysis strategy that significantly improves the usefulness of this popular nanoparticle characterization technique.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery · Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Graphene and Nanomaterials Applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Institute of Life Sciences, Swansea University Medical School, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, U.K.

Centre for Nanohealth, Swansea University College of Engineering, Fabian Way, Crymlyn Burrows, Swansea, SA1 8EN, U.K.

School of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, U.K.

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, United States

Department of Biomedical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, United States

Department of Physics, Swansea University College of Science, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, U.K.

Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, 30 Marie-Curie Private, Ottawa K1N 9B4, Ontario, Canada

Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, 415 Main Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, United States

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

References (67)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1038/nrc156610.1038/nrc1566 ↗
2. 10.1038/nnano.2008.4610.1038/nnano.2008.46 ↗
3. 10.1038/nnano.2009.24810.1038/nnano.2009.248 ↗
4. 10.1021/ja107583h10.1021/ja107583h ↗
5. 10.1021/ja910675v10.1021/ja910675v ↗
6. 10.3109/17435390.2012.66657610.3109/17435390.2012.666576 ↗
7. 10.1208/s12248-012-9339-410.1208/s12248-012-9339-4 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.nantod.2016.06.00710.1016/j.nantod.2016.06.007 ↗
9. 10.1038/nnano.2012.26110.1038/nnano.2012.261 ↗
10. 10.1038/nnano.2012.15010.1038/nnano.2012.150 ↗
11. 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b0010810.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00108 ↗
12. 10.1038/nnano.2013.7810.1038/nnano.2013.78 ↗
13. 10.1038/nnano.2013.1910.1038/nnano.2013.19 ↗
14. 10.1038/nnano.2013.4810.1038/nnano.2013.48 ↗
15. 10.1038/nnano.2013.210.1038/nnano.2013.2 ↗
16. Chu B. · 1991
17. 10.1093/toxsci/kfj09910.1093/toxsci/kfj099 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.06.01710.1016/j.jconrel.2016.06.017 ↗
19. 10.1007/s11095-010-0073-210.1007/s11095-010-0073-2 ↗
20. 10.1007/s11051-012-0977-310.1007/s11051-012-0977-3 ↗
21. 10.1093/mutage/gep01010.1093/mutage/gep010 ↗
22. 10.1093/mutage/ges06810.1093/mutage/ges068 ↗
23. 10.1093/toxsci/kfv00210.1093/toxsci/kfv002 ↗
24. 10.1093/toxsci/kft22210.1093/toxsci/kft222 ↗
25. 10.1093/toxsci/kfu23810.1093/toxsci/kfu238 ↗
26. 10.1093/mutage/gew01510.1093/mutage/gew015 ↗
27. 10.1088/1742-6596/371/1/01208010.1088/1742-6596/371/1/012080 ↗
28. 10.1021/la052878f10.1021/la052878f ↗
29. 10.1021/ma980615510.1021/ma9806155 ↗
30. 10.1093/toxsci/kfm21710.1093/toxsci/kfm217 ↗
31. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Test Guideline487 – The in Vitro Mammalian Cell MicronucleusTest. (2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264264861-en, accessed August 15, 2017.10.1787/9789264264861-en ↗
32. 10.1186/1743-8977-7-3910.1186/1743-8977-7-39 ↗
33. 10.1186/s12989-016-0161-510.1186/s12989-016-0161-5 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2016.10.04610.1016/j.colsurfb.2016.10.046 ↗
35. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1990.tb03620.x10.1111/j.1365-2125.1990.tb03620.x ↗
36. 10.1016/0006-291X(74)90850-X10.1016/0006-291X(74)90850-X ↗
37. 10.1038/nnano.2012.14810.1038/nnano.2012.148 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2011.09.01310.1016/j.mrgentox.2011.09.013 ↗
39. 10.1371/journal.pone.014159310.1371/journal.pone.0141593 ↗
40. 10.1093/mutage/geq08810.1093/mutage/geq088 ↗
41. 10.1186/1556-276X-8-38110.1186/1556-276X-8-381 ↗
42. 10.1021/nn200749610.1021/nn2007496 ↗
43. 10.1093/toxsci/kfl16510.1093/toxsci/kfl165 ↗
44. 10.1038/nnano.2013.810.1038/nnano.2013.8 ↗
45. 10.1021/tx600319810.1021/tx6003198 ↗
46. 10.1021/la104278m10.1021/la104278m ↗
47. Berne B. J. · 2000
48. Hunter R. J. · 1988
49. 10.1038/nnano.2011.5810.1038/nnano.2011.58 ↗
50. 10.1021/nn502356f10.1021/nn502356f ↗
51. 10.1038/nnano.2010.27710.1038/nnano.2010.277 ↗
52. 10.1021/nn401961910.1021/nn4019619 ↗
53. 10.1186/1743-8977-11-2010.1186/1743-8977-11-20 ↗
54. 10.1186/s12989-015-0109-110.1186/s12989-015-0109-1 ↗
55. 10.1038/ncomms451410.1038/ncomms4514 ↗
56. Rasband, W. S.ImageJ;U.S. National Institutes of Health:Bethesda, MD, USA, 1997–2017,http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/, accessed August 15, 2017.
57. 10.1002/nbm.97010.1002/nbm.970 ↗
58. 10.1186/1471-2105-8-28810.1186/1471-2105-8-288 ↗
59. International Organisation for Standardisation. ISO 3105:1994.Glass Capillary Kinematic Viscometers–Specifications and OperatingInstructions. 1994–2012, https://www.iso.org/standard/8254.html, accessed August 15, 2017.
60. 10.1002/em.2187010.1002/em.21870 ↗
61. 10.1093/mutage/gev05010.1093/mutage/gev050 ↗
62. 10.1093/mutage/gev08510.1093/mutage/gev085 ↗
63. 10.1093/mutage/gew00910.1093/mutage/gew009 ↗
64. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) · EFSA Journal · 2009 · 1150 · 1
65. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) · EFSA Journal. · 2017 · 15 · 4658
66. 10.1093/toxsci/66.2.29810.1093/toxsci/66.2.298 ↗
67. 10.1093/toxsci/kfv10910.1093/toxsci/kfv109 ↗