• No results found

University of Groningen Fluorescent Nanodiamonds as Free Radical Sensors in Aging Yeast Cells van der Laan, Kiran

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "University of Groningen Fluorescent Nanodiamonds as Free Radical Sensors in Aging Yeast Cells van der Laan, Kiran"

Copied!
67
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Fluorescent Nanodiamonds as Free Radical Sensors in Aging Yeast Cells

van der Laan, Kiran

DOI:

10.33612/diss.112906297

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2020

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

van der Laan, K. (2020). Fluorescent Nanodiamonds as Free Radical Sensors in Aging Yeast Cells: a baker’s yeast response to small diamonds with great potential!. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.112906297

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

(2)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 87PDF page: 87PDF page: 87PDF page: 87

(3)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 88PDF page: 88PDF page: 88PDF page: 88

Nanodiamonds and Their Applications in Cells

Mayeul Chipaux1a, Kiran J. van der Laan1a, Simon R. Hemelaara, Masoumeh Hasanib, Tingting Zhengc, Romana Schirhagl*a

1These authors have contributed equally.

a Groningen University, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AW Groningen, Netherlands, email corresponding author:

romana.schirhagl@gmail.com

b Department of Organic Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan 6517838683, Iran

c Shenzhen Key Laboratory for Drug Addiction and Medication Safety, Department of Ultrasound, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital & Biomedical Research Institute,

Shenzhen-PKU-HKUST Medical Center, 518036 Shenzhen, China

Small 14: 24 1704263 (2018).

Abstract

Diamonds owe their fame to a unique set of outstanding properties. They combine a high refractive index, hardness, great stability and inertness and low electrical but high thermal conductivity. Diamond defects have recently attracted a lot of attention. Given this unique list of properties, it is not surprising that diamond nanoparticles have been utilized for numerous applications. Due to their hardness they are routinely used as abrasives. Their small and uniform size qualifies them as attractive carriers for drug delivery. The stable fluorescence of diamond defects allows their use as stable single photon source or biolabel. The magnetic properties of the defects make them stable spin qubits in quantum information. This property also allows their use as a sensor for temperature, magnetic fields, electric fields or strain. This Review article focusses on applications in cells. Different diamond materials and the special requirements for the respective applications are discussed. Methods to chemically modify the surface of diamonds and the different hurdles one has to overcome when working with cells, such as entering the cells and biocompatibility, are described. Finally, the recent developments and applications in labeling, sensing, drug delivery, theranostics, antibiotics and tissue engineering are critically discussed.

(4)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 89PDF page: 89PDF page: 89PDF page: 89

Nanodiamonds and Their Applications in Cells

Mayeul Chipaux1a, Kiran J. van der Laan1a, Simon R. Hemelaara, Masoumeh Hasanib, Tingting Zhengc, Romana Schirhagl*a

1These authors have contributed equally.

a Groningen University, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AW Groningen, Netherlands, email corresponding author:

romana.schirhagl@gmail.com

b Department of Organic Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan 6517838683, Iran

c Shenzhen Key Laboratory for Drug Addiction and Medication Safety, Department of Ultrasound, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital & Biomedical Research Institute,

Shenzhen-PKU-HKUST Medical Center, 518036 Shenzhen, China

Small 14: 24 1704263 (2018).

Abstract

Diamonds owe their fame to a unique set of outstanding properties. They combine a high refractive index, hardness, great stability and inertness and low electrical but high thermal conductivity. Diamond defects have recently attracted a lot of attention. Given this unique list of properties, it is not surprising that diamond nanoparticles have been utilized for numerous applications. Due to their hardness they are routinely used as abrasives. Their small and uniform size qualifies them as attractive carriers for drug delivery. The stable fluorescence of diamond defects allows their use as stable single photon source or biolabel. The magnetic properties of the defects make them stable spin qubits in quantum information. This property also allows their use as a sensor for temperature, magnetic fields, electric fields or strain. This Review article focusses on applications in cells. Different diamond materials and the special requirements for the respective applications are discussed. Methods to chemically modify the surface of diamonds and the different hurdles one has to overcome when working with cells, such as entering the cells and biocompatibility, are described. Finally, the recent developments and applications in labeling, sensing, drug delivery, theranostics, antibiotics and tissue engineering are critically discussed.

88 89

(5)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 90PDF page: 90PDF page: 90PDF page: 90

1. Introduction

Diamonds are arguably the most valued gemstones. Moreover, due to a unique set of properties diamonds are also highly valued for a large number of other applications. Diamond is one of the hardest materials1 and a very good thermal conductor,2 while being an excellent electrical insulator.3 While these properties on its own are already interesting, it is really unique that they are all combined in one material. Due to the high covalent bond strength between the carbon atoms, diamond is very inert. However, the rich surface chemistry allows to attach all kinds of molecules.4

The many stable defects in diamond offer a whole new set of possibilities. Since they are well protected inside the crystal they are uniquely stable.5 Thus nanodiamond-based labels can be observed for long times. In addition, some defects have become popular since they change their fluorescence based on their magnetic surrounding. This effect can be utilized in nanoscale quantum sensing.

Several different aspects of nanodiamonds and their applications have already been reviewed: magnetometry,6,7 surface chemistry,8,9 the physics of defects,10 tracking or imaging,11 drug delivery12,13 or a combination of several applications.14–18 There are a few recent articles about bioapplications of diamonds, but they do not specifically focus on cells. Turcheniuk et al. focus mainly on detonation nanodiamonds and its applications19, whereas Hsiao et al. provide a shorter review where they discuss temperature sensing, super resolution imaging and tracking.20 Here we review applications of nanodiamonds in cells. To this end we will first discuss different diamond materials and their key properties. There are different ways of synthesizing nanodiamonds leading to diamond material with different sizes, different purities and entirely different properties. Next we discuss how diamonds can enter the cell and what we currently know about their biocompatibility. Then we will review how diamonds can be optimized for intracellular applications. Finally we will highlight different applications of nanodiamonds in cells. We will first introduce applications that rely on the optical properties of diamonds. Then we will continue with applications which make use of the small and reproducible size, with narrow size distribution.21 These so-called detonation nanodiamonds are useful as carriers of other substances, which are assembled around them. This concept leads, for instance, to applications in drug delivery.

2. Diamond Starting Materials

With the quick rise of interest in diamond materials and the demand of ever purer materials, new innovations in producing nanodiamonds have emerged. These materials are often mixed up in the literature and especially in older articles it was not always specified which material was used. By now there are numerous materials available in different sizes and shapes with entirely different properties. In this section the different materials that are currently available are introduced, starting from the simplest. Additionally, we will indicate for each application which diamond material is suited best in the later sections.

Historically, the first diamond nanomaterials that were utilized were detonation nanodiamonds (DNDs). These are created when selected organic compounds are brought to explosion in a controlled way.22 DNDs are typically round to oval in shape and measure uniformly about 5 nm in size.22 Their small size and narrow size distribution make them a popular research topic. If not especially cleaned however, they tend to aggregate with each other. Additionally, they are relatively chemically inert, but still reactive enough to allow functionalization. Another advantage is their large relative surface area, which can be used to effectively attach different compound. These properties of DNDs are, for instance, very advantageous in drug delivery. Due to their structural composition and creation method, DNDs usually have a graphitic layer on the outside and relatively many impurities and structural defects.23 Although stable defects have occasionally been observed in diamonds at this size24 and even down to 1.6 nm crystals,25 this is still rather rare. Their small size thus renders them impracticable if defined defects are needed, as in quantum sensing applications. Even more so, if a high number of defects in the diamond is desired, which is the case for labelling applications. However, there are some recent developments, which might render DNDs more useful for labelling. They can be used as support for dyes26,27 or their surface chemistry can be tuned to achieve desired optical properties.28

A different type of nanodiamonds is available from high pressure high temperature (HPHT) synthesis followed by grinding down the material to the desired sizes.29 Different size fractions of this material are available with average particle sizes between 10 nm and up to micrometer sizes. Due to their use as abrasives, these materials are produced on a large scale and thus comparably

(6)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 91PDF page: 91PDF page: 91PDF page: 91

1. Introduction

Diamonds are arguably the most valued gemstones. Moreover, due to a unique set of properties diamonds are also highly valued for a large number of other applications. Diamond is one of the hardest materials1 and a very good thermal conductor,2 while being an excellent electrical insulator.3 While these properties on its own are already interesting, it is really unique that they are all combined in one material. Due to the high covalent bond strength between the carbon atoms, diamond is very inert. However, the rich surface chemistry allows to attach all kinds of molecules.4

The many stable defects in diamond offer a whole new set of possibilities. Since they are well protected inside the crystal they are uniquely stable.5 Thus nanodiamond-based labels can be observed for long times. In addition, some defects have become popular since they change their fluorescence based on their magnetic surrounding. This effect can be utilized in nanoscale quantum sensing.

Several different aspects of nanodiamonds and their applications have already been reviewed: magnetometry,6,7 surface chemistry,8,9 the physics of defects,10 tracking or imaging,11 drug delivery12,13 or a combination of several applications.14–18 There are a few recent articles about bioapplications of diamonds, but they do not specifically focus on cells. Turcheniuk et al. focus mainly on detonation nanodiamonds and its applications19, whereas Hsiao et al. provide a shorter review where they discuss temperature sensing, super resolution imaging and tracking.20 Here we review applications of nanodiamonds in cells. To this end we will first discuss different diamond materials and their key properties. There are different ways of synthesizing nanodiamonds leading to diamond material with different sizes, different purities and entirely different properties. Next we discuss how diamonds can enter the cell and what we currently know about their biocompatibility. Then we will review how diamonds can be optimized for intracellular applications. Finally we will highlight different applications of nanodiamonds in cells. We will first introduce applications that rely on the optical properties of diamonds. Then we will continue with applications which make use of the small and reproducible size, with narrow size distribution.21 These so-called detonation nanodiamonds are useful as carriers of other substances, which are assembled around them. This concept leads, for instance, to applications in drug delivery.

2. Diamond Starting Materials

With the quick rise of interest in diamond materials and the demand of ever purer materials, new innovations in producing nanodiamonds have emerged. These materials are often mixed up in the literature and especially in older articles it was not always specified which material was used. By now there are numerous materials available in different sizes and shapes with entirely different properties. In this section the different materials that are currently available are introduced, starting from the simplest. Additionally, we will indicate for each application which diamond material is suited best in the later sections.

Historically, the first diamond nanomaterials that were utilized were detonation nanodiamonds (DNDs). These are created when selected organic compounds are brought to explosion in a controlled way.22 DNDs are typically round to oval in shape and measure uniformly about 5 nm in size.22 Their small size and narrow size distribution make them a popular research topic. If not especially cleaned however, they tend to aggregate with each other. Additionally, they are relatively chemically inert, but still reactive enough to allow functionalization. Another advantage is their large relative surface area, which can be used to effectively attach different compound. These properties of DNDs are, for instance, very advantageous in drug delivery. Due to their structural composition and creation method, DNDs usually have a graphitic layer on the outside and relatively many impurities and structural defects.23 Although stable defects have occasionally been observed in diamonds at this size24 and even down to 1.6 nm crystals,25 this is still rather rare. Their small size thus renders them impracticable if defined defects are needed, as in quantum sensing applications. Even more so, if a high number of defects in the diamond is desired, which is the case for labelling applications. However, there are some recent developments, which might render DNDs more useful for labelling. They can be used as support for dyes26,27 or their surface chemistry can be tuned to achieve desired optical properties.28

A different type of nanodiamonds is available from high pressure high temperature (HPHT) synthesis followed by grinding down the material to the desired sizes.29 Different size fractions of this material are available with average particle sizes between 10 nm and up to micrometer sizes. Due to their use as abrasives, these materials are produced on a large scale and thus comparably

90 91

(7)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 92PDF page: 92PDF page: 92PDF page: 92 cheap. There are different approaches to obtain different sizes. Centrifuging the

smallest commercially available products and only using supernatant, for instance, leads to particle sizes down to 4 nm on average.30 Another method to decrease size is to use oxidation. HPHT diamonds can naturally host different defects as, for instance, nitrogen vacancy (NV) centers and are thus the simplest material that is suitable for quantum sensing applications. By now, also irradiated HPHT diamond material with an increased number of defects are commercially available, as well as diamonds with different surface chemistry. Due to their increased brightness, these materials are most suitable for optical labelling. Depending on the diamond size, one diamond nanoparticle can host up to thousands of defects.

While these HPHT diamonds usually have sharp edges and a flake-like geometry,31 particles with round shapes have also been produced. These are generated from sharp edged diamond particles by short-term oxidation in melted potassium nitrate.32 For applications in cells, these are particularly interesting, since they are ingested into cells differently than particles with sharp edges (see Figure 2a,b).33

Another approach to produce nanodiamonds starts with diamondoid structures, small molecule units with a diamond crystal structure (Figure 1c). The nanodiamond is grown around this molecule.34,35 During the synthesis of this molecule, foreign atoms can be placed at the desired locations. This method promises the most accurate control over the exact location of defects and might even give the opportunity to place two or more defects at a defined distance from each other. However, so far, the small yields obtained by this method have complicated characterizing the material and subsequently employing the full potential of the method.

Figure 1. Different nanodiamond materials: a) A model of a detonation nanodiamond.

Reproduced with permission.22 Copyright 2012, Springer Nature. b) Diamonds from high

pressure high temperature synthesis (scale bar: 200 nm). c) A new approach is shown which starts with a (diamondoid) seed (in this case an HPHT diamond), which is then overgrown by a pure chemical vapor deposition (CVD) diamond. Reproduced with permission.22,36,37 Copyright 2012, Springer Nature, Copyright 2014, ACS Publications,

and Copyright 2015, Wiley-VCH. d) A sequence of synthesis steps that lead to nanofabricated diamonds. (1) First, metal particles are deposited onto the diamond surface. (2) Then, the diamond is etched while the particles protect the area beneath. (3) After removing the metal, (4) defects are implanted. (5) Finally, the particles are broken off from the surface and ready to use.

The increased demand on diamond purity, mainly for quantum sensing application, and the desired control over the defect architecture have led to the development of two more innovations. An innovative approach is to start from bulk diamond materials and then produce nanodiamonds by nanofabrication, as illustrated in Figure 1d.36 This has the striking advantage that bulk diamonds can be created in very high purity. Implanting them from the surface also gives a good control over the positioning of the defect.38 Moreover, with this approach, the shape of the particle can be controlled in the fabrication process. While this method has produced nanodiamonds with the best purity and thus is most promising for quantum sensing, it is obviously more complicated, expensive and time consuming than the above-mentioned approaches.

Apart from the already mentioned techniques, a few others have been developed. However, these have not received such widespread attention since they are produced in low yields and/or low quality of the material. Examples are irradiation of graphite or carbon onions,39,40 laser ablation41 or the use of ultrasound.42

(8)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 93PDF page: 93PDF page: 93PDF page: 93 cheap. There are different approaches to obtain different sizes. Centrifuging the

smallest commercially available products and only using supernatant, for instance, leads to particle sizes down to 4 nm on average.30 Another method to decrease size is to use oxidation. HPHT diamonds can naturally host different defects as, for instance, nitrogen vacancy (NV) centers and are thus the simplest material that is suitable for quantum sensing applications. By now, also irradiated HPHT diamond material with an increased number of defects are commercially available, as well as diamonds with different surface chemistry. Due to their increased brightness, these materials are most suitable for optical labelling. Depending on the diamond size, one diamond nanoparticle can host up to thousands of defects.

While these HPHT diamonds usually have sharp edges and a flake-like geometry,31 particles with round shapes have also been produced. These are generated from sharp edged diamond particles by short-term oxidation in melted potassium nitrate.32 For applications in cells, these are particularly interesting, since they are ingested into cells differently than particles with sharp edges (see Figure 2a,b).33

Another approach to produce nanodiamonds starts with diamondoid structures, small molecule units with a diamond crystal structure (Figure 1c). The nanodiamond is grown around this molecule.34,35 During the synthesis of this molecule, foreign atoms can be placed at the desired locations. This method promises the most accurate control over the exact location of defects and might even give the opportunity to place two or more defects at a defined distance from each other. However, so far, the small yields obtained by this method have complicated characterizing the material and subsequently employing the full potential of the method.

Figure 1. Different nanodiamond materials: a) A model of a detonation nanodiamond.

Reproduced with permission.22 Copyright 2012, Springer Nature. b) Diamonds from high

pressure high temperature synthesis (scale bar: 200 nm). c) A new approach is shown which starts with a (diamondoid) seed (in this case an HPHT diamond), which is then overgrown by a pure chemical vapor deposition (CVD) diamond. Reproduced with permission.22,36,37 Copyright 2012, Springer Nature, Copyright 2014, ACS Publications,

and Copyright 2015, Wiley-VCH. d) A sequence of synthesis steps that lead to nanofabricated diamonds. (1) First, metal particles are deposited onto the diamond surface. (2) Then, the diamond is etched while the particles protect the area beneath. (3) After removing the metal, (4) defects are implanted. (5) Finally, the particles are broken off from the surface and ready to use.

The increased demand on diamond purity, mainly for quantum sensing application, and the desired control over the defect architecture have led to the development of two more innovations. An innovative approach is to start from bulk diamond materials and then produce nanodiamonds by nanofabrication, as illustrated in Figure 1d.36 This has the striking advantage that bulk diamonds can be created in very high purity. Implanting them from the surface also gives a good control over the positioning of the defect.38 Moreover, with this approach, the shape of the particle can be controlled in the fabrication process. While this method has produced nanodiamonds with the best purity and thus is most promising for quantum sensing, it is obviously more complicated, expensive and time consuming than the above-mentioned approaches.

Apart from the already mentioned techniques, a few others have been developed. However, these have not received such widespread attention since they are produced in low yields and/or low quality of the material. Examples are irradiation of graphite or carbon onions,39,40 laser ablation41 or the use of ultrasound.42

92 93

(9)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 94PDF page: 94PDF page: 94PDF page: 94

3. How to Enter the Cell

For most cellular applications of diamonds, the particle has to enter the cell. Therefore, it has to overcome a physical barrier, the cell membrane. Given the large variety of cells and their different functions, it is not surprising that there are also great differences in diamond uptake or particle uptake in general. Some cells readily ingest particles with a large variety of sizes and mostly independent of the surface chemistry. Among these cells are for instance macrophages, whose natural function is to ingest particles. But also, other cell types like HeLa cells, a common cervix cancer carcinoma cell line, readily take up particles43–45 via so-called clathrin mediated endocytosis.46 This mechanism, which was found by systematically blocking different uptake pathways, is generally the most common uptake route for particles. A similar behavior was also observed for a lung cancer cell line (A549) and their healthy equivalents (Beas-2b nontumorigenic human bronchial epithelial cell and HFL-1 fibroblast-like human fetal lung cell).47

Other cell types do not ingest particles by themselves. Researchers have come up with several different approaches to solve this problem, which are summarized in Figure 2. The first of these strategies is to coat the diamond particle with certain molecules to promote uptake. To this end, different proteins48 or protein mixtures have been utilized. Their purpose was either to prevent aggregation49 or to trigger uptake via a certain mechanism. Zhang et al. for instance attached folic acid to their particles to trigger uptake into HeLa cells via an endogenous receptor.50 Another strategy is to attach electropositive molecules.51 The principle behind this strategy is to prevent electrostatic repulsion between negatively charged proteins in the cell membrane and the electronegative surface of (the most common) oxygen terminated diamonds.

Figure 2. Different strategies that have been utilized to achieve or prevent diamond uptake. a) Some selected cells are capable of ingesting diamond particles without further help. It has been observed that diamond particles with sharp edges leave the endosomes. b) Rounded diamonds are also ingested by some cells. However, they remain in the endosomes and are finally excreted again. c) Endocytosis can be mediated by coating the diamonds with different functional molecules. d) When cells are kept under low temperatures, uptake can also be prevented as endocytosis does not take place. e,f) For cell types that do not readily take up particles, alternative strategies have been developed. The first strategy (e) is to permeabilize the cell membrane. The second method (f), for very large cells, is to inject the diamond particles.

An alternative approach is to permeabilize the cell membrane. The field of gene transfection offers many possible methods to achieve this goal. Among these methods electroporation and chemical transformation have been used successfully for diamond particles. Plant cells, fungi and many single-cell organisms have a relatively thick cell wall in addition to a cell membrane. This is a barrier that needs to be overcome, to bring diamond into these cells. This was achieved for yeast cells by adding certain chemicals or electric fields.52 The advantage of this method is that it is expected to work for theoretically any cell type. Whereas, the natural uptake of particles by endocytosis have consistently been reported to be very biocompatible, permeabilization has the disadvantage that it disrupts the cell membrane and is thus more invasive to the cells. Despite the invasiveness, the broad use of these techniques in gene transfection indicates that there are still viable cells left after the protocol and that cells can recover from this process. An even more invasive method is to inject diamond

(a) Spontaneous endocytosis

(e) Permeabilizing the cell membrane

(c) Mediated endocytosis

(f) Injection (d) Preventing uptake

(b) Endocytosis of rounded particles

(10)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 95PDF page: 95PDF page: 95PDF page: 95

3. How to Enter the Cell

For most cellular applications of diamonds, the particle has to enter the cell. Therefore, it has to overcome a physical barrier, the cell membrane. Given the large variety of cells and their different functions, it is not surprising that there are also great differences in diamond uptake or particle uptake in general. Some cells readily ingest particles with a large variety of sizes and mostly independent of the surface chemistry. Among these cells are for instance macrophages, whose natural function is to ingest particles. But also, other cell types like HeLa cells, a common cervix cancer carcinoma cell line, readily take up particles43–45 via so-called clathrin mediated endocytosis.46 This mechanism, which was found by systematically blocking different uptake pathways, is generally the most common uptake route for particles. A similar behavior was also observed for a lung cancer cell line (A549) and their healthy equivalents (Beas-2b nontumorigenic human bronchial epithelial cell and HFL-1 fibroblast-like human fetal lung cell).47

Other cell types do not ingest particles by themselves. Researchers have come up with several different approaches to solve this problem, which are summarized in Figure 2. The first of these strategies is to coat the diamond particle with certain molecules to promote uptake. To this end, different proteins48 or protein mixtures have been utilized. Their purpose was either to prevent aggregation49 or to trigger uptake via a certain mechanism. Zhang et al. for instance attached folic acid to their particles to trigger uptake into HeLa cells via an endogenous receptor.50 Another strategy is to attach electropositive molecules.51 The principle behind this strategy is to prevent electrostatic repulsion between negatively charged proteins in the cell membrane and the electronegative surface of (the most common) oxygen terminated diamonds.

Figure 2. Different strategies that have been utilized to achieve or prevent diamond uptake. a) Some selected cells are capable of ingesting diamond particles without further help. It has been observed that diamond particles with sharp edges leave the endosomes. b) Rounded diamonds are also ingested by some cells. However, they remain in the endosomes and are finally excreted again. c) Endocytosis can be mediated by coating the diamonds with different functional molecules. d) When cells are kept under low temperatures, uptake can also be prevented as endocytosis does not take place. e,f) For cell types that do not readily take up particles, alternative strategies have been developed. The first strategy (e) is to permeabilize the cell membrane. The second method (f), for very large cells, is to inject the diamond particles.

An alternative approach is to permeabilize the cell membrane. The field of gene transfection offers many possible methods to achieve this goal. Among these methods electroporation and chemical transformation have been used successfully for diamond particles. Plant cells, fungi and many single-cell organisms have a relatively thick cell wall in addition to a cell membrane. This is a barrier that needs to be overcome, to bring diamond into these cells. This was achieved for yeast cells by adding certain chemicals or electric fields.52 The advantage of this method is that it is expected to work for theoretically any cell type. Whereas, the natural uptake of particles by endocytosis have consistently been reported to be very biocompatible, permeabilization has the disadvantage that it disrupts the cell membrane and is thus more invasive to the cells. Despite the invasiveness, the broad use of these techniques in gene transfection indicates that there are still viable cells left after the protocol and that cells can recover from this process. An even more invasive method is to inject diamond

(a) Spontaneous endocytosis

(e) Permeabilizing the cell membrane

(c) Mediated endocytosis

(f) Injection (d) Preventing uptake

(b) Endocytosis of rounded particles

94 95

(11)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 96PDF page: 96PDF page: 96PDF page: 96 particles into the cells with a microneedle. The main limitation of this approach

is that punching a needle through the cell membrane is not only very invasive, but is also limited to fairly large cells as, for instance, oocytes (egg cells).53 A very elegant approach to circumvent or at least reduce this problem has been demonstrated by Loh et al.54 The authors used microfabricated hollow atomic force microscopy tips with a special geometry to inject the diamonds (clusters of DND). While the method has the downside that it requires special equipment and microfabricated parts, this method is broadly applicable. Successful uptake with this method was obtained in human breast cancer cells (MCF-7), human colorectal cancer cells (RKO) and murine macrophages (264.7).

Another factor which influences cellular uptake is the shape of the particle. This is generally the case for nanoparticle uptake into cells. The difference in diamond uptake diamond, which was found by Chu et al., is shown in Fig. 2a,b.33 While prickly shaped particles enter via endocytosis and escape the endosomes, rounded particles stay in the endosome and eventually are excreted. Zhang et al. attribute the difference in uptake to the ability of the particles to anchor to the cell membrane and to pierce through it.55

4. In Vitro Biocompatibility

To validate the use of nanodiamond (ND) applications in cellular systems, understanding its behavior and potential risks in cell cultures is needed. Nanodiamonds have been appointed as the most promising candidates for biomedical applications, due to their high biocompatibility as compared to other (carbon-based) nanomaterials.56,57 The biocompatibility assessment of nanodiamonds in in vitro models will be subject of this section.

In the past decade, the cytotoxicity of nanodiamonds to several cell lines has beenextensively studied. Cell types originating from different organs in both humans and mice have been used to examine cytotoxicity effects of nanodiamonds. Next to a variety of cell lines that has been tested, there is also a range of methods used to assess influences on cell biology. Cytotoxicity effects are measured by detecting metabolic activity, proliferation, differentiation, morphological differences, differential gene and protein expression, and oxidative stress levels. Since there are as well different

nanodiamond materials providing different properties, as described previously, the cytotoxicity results will be discussed for the smallest diamonds (detonation

nanodiamonds, <10 nm) and greater sized nanodiamonds separately. A distinction will also be made between short-term effects that are seen immediately or within 48 hours and long-term effects that only materialize after several days of exposure.

4.1 DND In Vitro Safety Assessment

4.1.1 Short-Term Functional Effects

Several cellular properties were evaluated to determine direct effects of detonation nanodiamonds on the viability of cells. In the numerous cell lines that were tested, only low cytotoxic effects to nanodiamonds were detected by measuring the metabolic activity with an 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromidefor (MTT) assay58–62 or 2,3-bis-(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide (XTT) assay63 directly after ND exposure.

Schrand et al. have additionally observed intact mitochondrial membranes, which confirms unchanged metabolic activity.64,65 Notably, they did observe a cell-specific response, whereas ND incubation for 24 h did not decrease viability of neuroblastoma cells, but did affect the viability of macrophages at higher concentrations.65 The authors suggest that this cell-specific response is influenced by the internalization mechanisms and the ability to initiate an inflammatory response or apoptosis (programmed cell death). Remaining viability after incubation with NDs was also demonstrated to be dependent of the presence of serum in the culture medium, which was explained to be a result of the protective role of serum protein coatings on the NDs.59 Using another metabolic activity assay, WST-1, Thomas et al. did find a decrease in viability, however only at a 2-fold increase in ND concentration of the highest concentration used by the previously mentioned studies.66 Lower concentrations of NDs were as well shown to be non-toxic. In contrast to Li et al. (2010), Thomas et al. did not find a difference in viability of cells exposed to NDs, both DNDs and fluorescent nanodiamonds (FNDs), in either serum-free medium or complete medium.

To investigate the occurrence of apoptosis in response to DNDs, the level of DNA fragmentation was assessed and no indications of ND-induced apoptosis were found in murine cells.61,62 Using fluorescent markers in murine macrophages, Thomas et al. found a significant decrease in proliferation and an increase in late apoptotic cells, but not early apoptotic cells.66 Moore et al.

(12)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 97PDF page: 97PDF page: 97PDF page: 97 particles into the cells with a microneedle. The main limitation of this approach

is that punching a needle through the cell membrane is not only very invasive, but is also limited to fairly large cells as, for instance, oocytes (egg cells).53 A very elegant approach to circumvent or at least reduce this problem has been demonstrated by Loh et al.54 The authors used microfabricated hollow atomic force microscopy tips with a special geometry to inject the diamonds (clusters of DND). While the method has the downside that it requires special equipment and microfabricated parts, this method is broadly applicable. Successful uptake with this method was obtained in human breast cancer cells (MCF-7), human colorectal cancer cells (RKO) and murine macrophages (264.7).

Another factor which influences cellular uptake is the shape of the particle. This is generally the case for nanoparticle uptake into cells. The difference in diamond uptake diamond, which was found by Chu et al., is shown in Fig. 2a,b.33 While prickly shaped particles enter via endocytosis and escape the endosomes, rounded particles stay in the endosome and eventually are excreted. Zhang et al. attribute the difference in uptake to the ability of the particles to anchor to the cell membrane and to pierce through it.55

4. In Vitro Biocompatibility

To validate the use of nanodiamond (ND) applications in cellular systems, understanding its behavior and potential risks in cell cultures is needed. Nanodiamonds have been appointed as the most promising candidates for biomedical applications, due to their high biocompatibility as compared to other (carbon-based) nanomaterials.56,57 The biocompatibility assessment of nanodiamonds in in vitro models will be subject of this section.

In the past decade, the cytotoxicity of nanodiamonds to several cell lines has beenextensively studied. Cell types originating from different organs in both humans and mice have been used to examine cytotoxicity effects of nanodiamonds. Next to a variety of cell lines that has been tested, there is also a range of methods used to assess influences on cell biology. Cytotoxicity effects are measured by detecting metabolic activity, proliferation, differentiation, morphological differences, differential gene and protein expression, and oxidative stress levels. Since there are as well different

nanodiamond materials providing different properties, as described previously, the cytotoxicity results will be discussed for the smallest diamonds (detonation

nanodiamonds, <10 nm) and greater sized nanodiamonds separately. A distinction will also be made between short-term effects that are seen immediately or within 48 hours and long-term effects that only materialize after several days of exposure.

4.1 DND In Vitro Safety Assessment

4.1.1 Short-Term Functional Effects

Several cellular properties were evaluated to determine direct effects of detonation nanodiamonds on the viability of cells. In the numerous cell lines that were tested, only low cytotoxic effects to nanodiamonds were detected by measuring the metabolic activity with an 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromidefor (MTT) assay58–62 or 2,3-bis-(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide (XTT) assay63 directly after ND exposure.

Schrand et al. have additionally observed intact mitochondrial membranes, which confirms unchanged metabolic activity.64,65 Notably, they did observe a cell-specific response, whereas ND incubation for 24 h did not decrease viability of neuroblastoma cells, but did affect the viability of macrophages at higher concentrations.65 The authors suggest that this cell-specific response is influenced by the internalization mechanisms and the ability to initiate an inflammatory response or apoptosis (programmed cell death). Remaining viability after incubation with NDs was also demonstrated to be dependent of the presence of serum in the culture medium, which was explained to be a result of the protective role of serum protein coatings on the NDs.59 Using another metabolic activity assay, WST-1, Thomas et al. did find a decrease in viability, however only at a 2-fold increase in ND concentration of the highest concentration used by the previously mentioned studies.66 Lower concentrations of NDs were as well shown to be non-toxic. In contrast to Li et al. (2010), Thomas et al. did not find a difference in viability of cells exposed to NDs, both DNDs and fluorescent nanodiamonds (FNDs), in either serum-free medium or complete medium.

To investigate the occurrence of apoptosis in response to DNDs, the level of DNA fragmentation was assessed and no indications of ND-induced apoptosis were found in murine cells.61,62 Using fluorescent markers in murine macrophages, Thomas et al. found a significant decrease in proliferation and an increase in late apoptotic cells, but not early apoptotic cells.66 Moore et al.

96 97

(13)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 98PDF page: 98PDF page: 98PDF page: 98 detected the activity of enzymes involved in cell death and apoptosis, lactate

dehydrogenase and caspase respectively, after 24 hours of incubation with NDs. A modest increase in both cell death and apoptosis was found at the highest concentration, 1 mg mL-1, and only in one of the tested cell lines, HeLa cells. At more reasonable concentrations (< 500 µg mL-1), no ND-induced cell death and apoptosis was observed in both the tested cell lines. Furthermore, there was no change in expression levels of apoptotic markers, as well as inflammatory and proliferation markers, as a response to DNDs.63

While the above-mentioned studies were concerned with influences on cell viability, the following are concerned with more subtle changes. These changes do not lead to decreased viability or death of the cells, but can nevertheless influence the cell biology.

Morphological changes in the presence of NDs have been visually inspected. Unchanged morphology of tumor cell lines after incubations with DNDs was observed by Li et al. on HeLa cells, and Zakrzewska et al. on glioblastoma and hepatoma cells.59,60 On the other hand, Schrand et al. found an increase in neurite outgrowth of neuroblastoma cells as a response to nanodiamonds.64,65

A possible oxidative stress response to NDs was investigated in six different human cell lines. No increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) production after uptake of diamonds was found in any of these cells. 64,65 Zhang et al. have additionally evaluated the activity of two enzymes involved in oxidative stress response. Only minor, non-significant changes in enzyme activity were observed.56

4.1.2 Longer-Term Functional Effects

Besides the above-mentioned direct cytotoxicity effects, long-term responses to DND presence and long-term subcellular destination of the diamonds were the subject of several studies as well.

Viability after 3 days of DND incubation was tested by Mytych et al. and Dworak et al. and while the former did not find any significant decreases in viability in human hepatocytes (liver cells), the latter did find cytotoxic effects in human lymphocytes (white blood cells) at the higher concentrations that were applied (50 and 100 µg mL-1).67,68 Additionally, Mytych et al. performed a study where cells were incubated with DNDs for 48 hours and the viability was tested 6 d later.69 Next to the viability, they also found ND-induced ROS generation 6 d after ND incubation.67 In contrast to the study with 3 d of ND incubation, where

no increase of ROS generation itself was found, but only a significant increase of oxidative stress marker levels. Remarkably, Dworak et al. did find significant induction of total ROS production in lymphocytes after ND incubation of 1 up and until 100 µg mL-1.68 Moreover, cell proliferation was inhibited and apoptosis was induced by the two highest concentrations that were tested (50 and 100 µg mL-1).

The question whether diamonds can provoke toxicity by having an effect on genetics has as well been investigated. Genotoxicity can cause alterations at chromosome, molecular or base level, resulting in different expression levels.57 Changes in chromatin stability were detected in human lymphocytes, as the presence of DNA single strand breaks was increased even at concentration as low as 1 µg mL-1.68

No difference in total protein expression profile was reported,70 but also specific expression levels of inflammatory and apoptotic genes were not altered in murine61 and human macrophages.62 However, there were also some genotoxic effects reported. Xing et al. found some genotoxic effects after exposure to oxidized NDs. An increase in DNA repair proteins was found in

embryonic stem cells, indicating the appearance of DNA damage.71

Nevertheless, it was shown to be either a minor or a transient effect as there were no significant alterations in downstream biological factors observed and one of the author’s explanations concerns the highly sensitive cell model that was used in their research. An increase in inflammatory gene expression was found in human lung cells, suggesting the capability of NDs to cause an inflammatory response.72

Visual inspection of hepatocytes after 3 d of incubation with 10 µg mL-1 DNDs did show some morphological changes concerning the size and spreading of the cells.67 The destination of NDs within cells after internalization was reported to be in the cytoplasm, outside the nucleus.70 Over time, NDs appeared to accumulate in the cytoplasm in a concentration-dependent manner as number and size of aggregates increased at higher concentrations.70,71

To summarize, a concentration of 10 µg mL-1 of diamonds for 4 h or longer is a safe condition for most cell lines. Cytotoxicity has only been reported after exposure to DNDs at excessive concentrations (≥150 µg mL-1). Cytotoxic effects were mostly observed at concentrations over 100 µg mL-1, significant decrease in metabolic activity at 200 µg mL-1,66 and a modest increase in cell death and apoptosis at 1 mg mL-1.63 In contrast to this concentration-dependent

(14)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 99PDF page: 99PDF page: 99PDF page: 99 detected the activity of enzymes involved in cell death and apoptosis, lactate

dehydrogenase and caspase respectively, after 24 hours of incubation with NDs. A modest increase in both cell death and apoptosis was found at the highest concentration, 1 mg mL-1, and only in one of the tested cell lines, HeLa cells. At more reasonable concentrations (< 500 µg mL-1), no ND-induced cell death and apoptosis was observed in both the tested cell lines. Furthermore, there was no change in expression levels of apoptotic markers, as well as inflammatory and proliferation markers, as a response to DNDs.63

While the above-mentioned studies were concerned with influences on cell viability, the following are concerned with more subtle changes. These changes do not lead to decreased viability or death of the cells, but can nevertheless influence the cell biology.

Morphological changes in the presence of NDs have been visually inspected. Unchanged morphology of tumor cell lines after incubations with DNDs was observed by Li et al. on HeLa cells, and Zakrzewska et al. on glioblastoma and hepatoma cells.59,60 On the other hand, Schrand et al. found an increase in neurite outgrowth of neuroblastoma cells as a response to nanodiamonds.64,65

A possible oxidative stress response to NDs was investigated in six different human cell lines. No increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) production after uptake of diamonds was found in any of these cells. 64,65 Zhang et al. have additionally evaluated the activity of two enzymes involved in oxidative stress response. Only minor, non-significant changes in enzyme activity were observed.56

4.1.2 Longer-Term Functional Effects

Besides the above-mentioned direct cytotoxicity effects, long-term responses to DND presence and long-term subcellular destination of the diamonds were the subject of several studies as well.

Viability after 3 days of DND incubation was tested by Mytych et al. and Dworak et al. and while the former did not find any significant decreases in viability in human hepatocytes (liver cells), the latter did find cytotoxic effects in human lymphocytes (white blood cells) at the higher concentrations that were applied (50 and 100 µg mL-1).67,68 Additionally, Mytych et al. performed a study where cells were incubated with DNDs for 48 hours and the viability was tested 6 d later.69 Next to the viability, they also found ND-induced ROS generation 6 d after ND incubation.67 In contrast to the study with 3 d of ND incubation, where

no increase of ROS generation itself was found, but only a significant increase of oxidative stress marker levels. Remarkably, Dworak et al. did find significant induction of total ROS production in lymphocytes after ND incubation of 1 up and until 100 µg mL-1.68 Moreover, cell proliferation was inhibited and apoptosis was induced by the two highest concentrations that were tested (50 and 100 µg mL-1).

The question whether diamonds can provoke toxicity by having an effect on genetics has as well been investigated. Genotoxicity can cause alterations at chromosome, molecular or base level, resulting in different expression levels.57 Changes in chromatin stability were detected in human lymphocytes, as the presence of DNA single strand breaks was increased even at concentration as low as 1 µg mL-1.68

No difference in total protein expression profile was reported,70 but also specific expression levels of inflammatory and apoptotic genes were not altered in murine61 and human macrophages.62 However, there were also some genotoxic effects reported. Xing et al. found some genotoxic effects after exposure to oxidized NDs. An increase in DNA repair proteins was found in

embryonic stem cells, indicating the appearance of DNA damage.71

Nevertheless, it was shown to be either a minor or a transient effect as there were no significant alterations in downstream biological factors observed and one of the author’s explanations concerns the highly sensitive cell model that was used in their research. An increase in inflammatory gene expression was found in human lung cells, suggesting the capability of NDs to cause an inflammatory response.72

Visual inspection of hepatocytes after 3 d of incubation with 10 µg mL-1 DNDs did show some morphological changes concerning the size and spreading of the cells.67 The destination of NDs within cells after internalization was reported to be in the cytoplasm, outside the nucleus.70 Over time, NDs appeared to accumulate in the cytoplasm in a concentration-dependent manner as number and size of aggregates increased at higher concentrations.70,71

To summarize, a concentration of 10 µg mL-1 of diamonds for 4 h or longer is a safe condition for most cell lines. Cytotoxicity has only been reported after exposure to DNDs at excessive concentrations (≥150 µg mL-1). Cytotoxic effects were mostly observed at concentrations over 100 µg mL-1, significant decrease in metabolic activity at 200 µg mL-1,66 and a modest increase in cell death and apoptosis at 1 mg mL-1.63 In contrast to this concentration-dependent

98 99

(15)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 100PDF page: 100PDF page: 100PDF page: 100 cytotoxicity, the induced oxidative stress response in hepatocytes was detected

at extremely low concentrations (1 µg mL-1).67 So, besides the concentration, the cytotoxic effect depends on the type of biological materials as well. The earlier mentioned increase in cell death and apoptosis was observed only in one of the two tested cancer cell lines.63 A complete overview of the evaluated biological responses and the tested cell lines can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. In vitro biocompatibility testing to evaluate cellular responses to DNDs.

Biological effects are categorized in six categories: M = morphology, A=(metabolic) activity, O = oxidative stress, D = cell death/apoptosis, G = genotoxicity, S=cell survival (cell cycle, proliferation, differentiation).

ND size Cell lines In vitro biocompatibility data (tested

concentrations) Short/long term

Chao et

al.58 5 nm cNDs Human lung (A549) A (MTT): no decreased viability. incubation A: 4h ND

Dworak et

al.68 < 10 nm NDs lymphocytes Human and 100 µg/ml (1, 10, 50, 100 ug/ml). A (staining): decreased viability at 50

S: inhibition of cell proliferation 50

and 100 ug/ml (1, 10, 50, 100 ug/ml).

D (DNA fragmentation): induction of

apoptosis at 50 and 100 ug/ml (1, 10, 50, 100 ug/ml).

G: DNA oxidative damage, changes in

chromatin stability (1 ug/ml).

O: total ROS production significantly

increased at all concentrations (1, 10, 50, 100 ug/ml).

72h ND incubation

Huang et

al.61 2-8 nm ND macrophage cells Murine

(RAW 264.7)

G: no change in expression levels

inflammatory/apoptotic genes (100 µg/ml).

M: normal (30 µg/ml). D (DNA fragmentation): no increase in

cell death (25 µg/ml). G: at ND addition + 72h D: after 18h Human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells (ATCC) A (MTT): no decrease in viability (25 µg/ml). A: 41 hours Huang et al.62 2-8 ND (30 µg/ml) Murine macrophage cells (RAW 264.7)

G: no change in inflammatory genes

(30 µg/ml).

M: no difference (30 µg/ml). A (MTT): negligible difference (25

µg/ml).

D (DNA fragmentation): no induction

of apoptosis (25 µg/ml).

G: 24h. A: 24h.

Li et al.59 2-10 nm

ND cancer cells (HeLa) Human cervical A (MTT): no difference in complete cell culture medium, decreased in serum-free medium (50 µg/ml).

M: normal in complete medium (24h,

50 µg/ml), toxic effects in serum-free medium (6h, 50 µg/ml).

A: 24h ND

incubation.

A549, K562 A (MTT): no difference in complete

cell culture medium, decreased in serum-free medium (50 µg/ml).

(16)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 101PDF page: 101PDF page: 101PDF page: 101 cytotoxicity, the induced oxidative stress response in hepatocytes was detected

at extremely low concentrations (1 µg mL-1).67 So, besides the concentration, the cytotoxic effect depends on the type of biological materials as well. The earlier mentioned increase in cell death and apoptosis was observed only in one of the two tested cancer cell lines.63 A complete overview of the evaluated biological responses and the tested cell lines can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. In vitro biocompatibility testing to evaluate cellular responses to DNDs.

Biological effects are categorized in six categories: M = morphology, A=(metabolic) activity, O = oxidative stress, D = cell death/apoptosis, G = genotoxicity, S=cell survival (cell cycle, proliferation, differentiation).

ND size Cell lines In vitro biocompatibility data (tested

concentrations) Short/long term

Chao et

al.58 5 nm cNDs Human lung (A549) A (MTT): no decreased viability. incubation A: 4h ND

Dworak et

al.68 < 10 nm NDs lymphocytes Human and 100 µg/ml (1, 10, 50, 100 ug/ml). A (staining): decreased viability at 50

S: inhibition of cell proliferation 50

and 100 ug/ml (1, 10, 50, 100 ug/ml).

D (DNA fragmentation): induction of

apoptosis at 50 and 100 ug/ml (1, 10, 50, 100 ug/ml).

G: DNA oxidative damage, changes in

chromatin stability (1 ug/ml).

O: total ROS production significantly

increased at all concentrations (1, 10, 50, 100 ug/ml).

72h ND incubation

Huang et

al.61 2-8 nm ND macrophage cells Murine

(RAW 264.7)

G: no change in expression levels

inflammatory/apoptotic genes (100 µg/ml).

M: normal (30 µg/ml). D (DNA fragmentation): no increase in

cell death (25 µg/ml). G: at ND addition + 72h D: after 18h Human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells (ATCC) A (MTT): no decrease in viability (25 µg/ml). A: 41 hours Huang et al.62 2-8 ND (30 µg/ml) Murine macrophage cells (RAW 264.7)

G: no change in inflammatory genes

(30 µg/ml).

M: no difference (30 µg/ml). A (MTT): negligible difference (25

µg/ml).

D (DNA fragmentation): no induction

of apoptosis (25 µg/ml).

G: 24h. A: 24h.

Li et al.59 2-10 nm

ND cancer cells (HeLa) Human cervical A (MTT): no difference in complete cell culture medium, decreased in serum-free medium (50 µg/ml).

M: normal in complete medium (24h,

50 µg/ml), toxic effects in serum-free medium (6h, 50 µg/ml).

A: 24h ND

incubation.

A549, K562 A (MTT): no difference in complete

cell culture medium, decreased in serum-free medium (50 µg/ml).

100 101

(17)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 102PDF page: 102PDF page: 102PDF page: 102

Table 1. Continued.

ND size Cell lines In vitro biocompatibility data (tested

concentrations) Short/long term

Liu et al.70 5 nm

ND/cND epithelial cells Human lung (A549)

A (MTT): no reduction (0.1-100

µg/ml).

G: no alteration in protein expression

(100 µg/ml).

A: 4h ND

incubation.

Moore et

al.63 Liver (HepG2) A (XTT): no difference (1 µg/ml-1 mg/ml).

D (LDH): modest increase at highest

concentration (1 µg/ml-1 mg/ml).

D (apoptosis): modest increase at

highest concentration (1 µg/ml-1 mg/ml). G: no differential expression of apoptotic, inflammatory or proliferation markers (25 µg/ml). 24h ND incubation. Human cervical cancer cells (HeLa)

A (XTT): modest reduction at highest

concentration (1 µg/ml-1 mg/ml). D (LDH): no difference (1 µg/ml-1 mg/ml). D (apoptosis): no difference (1 µg/ml-1 mg/ml). G: no differential expression of apoptotic, inflammatory or proliferation markers (25 µg/ml). Mytych et

al.67 <10 nm ND Hepatocytes M: size and spreading affected (10 µg/ml).

A: modest decrease (10 and 50

µg/ml).

O: non-significant induction ROS

generation, significant increased levels of oxidative stress markers (10 µg/ml).

72h ND incubation

Mytych et

al.69 <10 nm ND Human fibroblasts (HDFa), renal

cancer cells (ACHN)

A (MTT): decrease (10 µg/ml). O: induced ROS generation (10 µg/ml).

S: induced cell cycle arrest (10 µg/ml).

48h ND incubation, testing 144 hours later Human cervical

cancer cells (HeLa) O: induced ROS generation (10 µg/ml). A (MTT): no effect (10 µg/ml). S: induced cell cycle arrest (10 µg/ml).

Table 1. Continued.

ND size Cell lines In vitro biocompatibility data (tested

concentrations) Short/long term

Schrand et

al.64 2-10 nm ND Neuroblastoma cells A (MTT): no difference (5-100 µg/ml) , intact mitochondrial membrane (100

µg/ml).

O: no difference ROS generation

(10-50 µg/ml)

M: increased neurite outgrowth (100

µg/ml) 24h ND incubation Macrophages, keratinocytes, PC-12 cells A (MTT): no differences (5-100 µg/ml) Schrand et

al.65 Neuroblastoma cells A (MTT and MPP): no decrease in viability (25-100 µg/ml), intact

mitochondrial membranes

M: neurite extensions O: no induction of ROS generation

(25-100 µg/ml)

24h ND incubation

Rat alveolar

macrophages A (MTT): dose-dependent decrease in viability (25-100 µg/ml)

O: no induction of ROS generation

(25-100 µg/ml) Silbajoris et

al.72 5 nm ND Primary normal human airway

epithelial cells (HAEC)

G: increased inflammatory gene

expression (66 µg/ml).

4h ND incubation

Thomas et

al.66 6 nm ND macrophages Murine

(RAW 264.7)

A (WST-1): significant reduction at

highest concentration (10-200 µg/ml)

S: significant decrease in proliferation

(50 µg/ml)

D: increase in late apoptotic cells (50

µg/ml) A: 6h/24h/48h ND incubation S/D: 24h ND incubation. Xing et al.71 4-5 nm

ND Murine embryonic stem cells G: short-term increase DNA repair proteins (5-100 µg/ml) G: 2h, 4h and 24h of ND incubation Zakrzewska

et al.60 2-6 nm ND glioblastoma Human

(ATCC) and hepatoma (C3A) A (MTT): no decrease (20-100 µg/ml). M: no differences (100 µg/ml). S: (100 µg/ml). 2 and 24h ND incubation 102 103

(18)

539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan 539807-L-bw-Laan Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020 Processed on: 21-1-2020

Processed on: 21-1-2020 PDF page: 103PDF page: 103PDF page: 103PDF page: 103

Table 1. Continued.

ND size Cell lines In vitro biocompatibility data (tested

concentrations) Short/long term

Liu et al.70 5 nm

ND/cND epithelial cells Human lung (A549)

A (MTT): no reduction (0.1-100

µg/ml).

G: no alteration in protein expression

(100 µg/ml).

A: 4h ND

incubation.

Moore et

al.63 Liver (HepG2) A (XTT): no difference (1 µg/ml-1 mg/ml).

D (LDH): modest increase at highest

concentration (1 µg/ml-1 mg/ml).

D (apoptosis): modest increase at

highest concentration (1 µg/ml-1 mg/ml). G: no differential expression of apoptotic, inflammatory or proliferation markers (25 µg/ml). 24h ND incubation. Human cervical cancer cells (HeLa)

A (XTT): modest reduction at highest

concentration (1 µg/ml-1 mg/ml). D (LDH): no difference (1 µg/ml-1 mg/ml). D (apoptosis): no difference (1 µg/ml-1 mg/ml). G: no differential expression of apoptotic, inflammatory or proliferation markers (25 µg/ml). Mytych et

al.67 <10 nm ND Hepatocytes M: size and spreading affected (10 µg/ml).

A: modest decrease (10 and 50

µg/ml).

O: non-significant induction ROS

generation, significant increased levels of oxidative stress markers (10 µg/ml).

72h ND incubation

Mytych et

al.69 <10 nm ND Human fibroblasts (HDFa), renal

cancer cells (ACHN)

A (MTT): decrease (10 µg/ml). O: induced ROS generation (10 µg/ml).

S: induced cell cycle arrest (10 µg/ml).

48h ND incubation, testing 144 hours later Human cervical

cancer cells (HeLa) O: induced ROS generation (10 µg/ml). A (MTT): no effect (10 µg/ml). S: induced cell cycle arrest (10 µg/ml).

Table 1. Continued.

ND size Cell lines In vitro biocompatibility data (tested

concentrations) Short/long term

Schrand et

al.64 2-10 nm ND Neuroblastoma cells A (MTT): no difference (5-100 µg/ml) , intact mitochondrial membrane (100

µg/ml).

O: no difference ROS generation

(10-50 µg/ml)

M: increased neurite outgrowth (100

µg/ml) 24h ND incubation Macrophages, keratinocytes, PC-12 cells A (MTT): no differences (5-100 µg/ml) Schrand et

al.65 Neuroblastoma cells A (MTT and MPP): no decrease in viability (25-100 µg/ml), intact

mitochondrial membranes

M: neurite extensions O: no induction of ROS generation

(25-100 µg/ml)

24h ND incubation

Rat alveolar

macrophages A (MTT): dose-dependent decrease in viability (25-100 µg/ml)

O: no induction of ROS generation

(25-100 µg/ml) Silbajoris et

al.72 5 nm ND Primary normal human airway

epithelial cells (HAEC)

G: increased inflammatory gene

expression (66 µg/ml).

4h ND incubation

Thomas et

al.66 6 nm ND macrophages Murine

(RAW 264.7)

A (WST-1): significant reduction at

highest concentration (10-200 µg/ml)

S: significant decrease in proliferation

(50 µg/ml)

D: increase in late apoptotic cells (50

µg/ml) A: 6h/24h/48h ND incubation S/D: 24h ND incubation. Xing et al.71 4-5 nm

ND Murine embryonic stem cells G: short-term increase DNA repair proteins (5-100 µg/ml) G: 2h, 4h and 24h of ND incubation Zakrzewska

et al.60 2-6 nm ND glioblastoma Human

(ATCC) and hepatoma (C3A) A (MTT): no decrease (20-100 µg/ml). M: no differences (100 µg/ml). S: (100 µg/ml). 2 and 24h ND incubation 102 103

5

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

The most effective and least-invasive method to induce fluorescent nanodiamond uptake in yeast cells is the use of a chemical transformation mix in combination with DMSO that

Taken together, we have shown the effective uptake of nanodiamonds in both stationary phase and aged yeast cells using the chemical transformation protocol.. This is a necessity

Here we have studied in detail the stress response of an aging model system, yeast cells, upon FND internalization, by measuring both metabolic activity, activity of genes involved

diamonds can create a contrast in MRI. T1 contrast can be achieved by using the paramagnetic defects in the diamond itself or by coating with conventional contrast agents.

Fluorescent Nanodiamonds as Free Radical Sensors in Aging Yeast Cells: a baker’s yeast response to small diamonds with great potential!..

Fluorescent Nanodiamonds as Free Radical Sensors in Aging Yeast Cells: a baker’s yeast response to small diamonds with great potential!..

Using a new method called diamond magnetometry, we aim to monitor free radical activity using fluorescent nanodiamonds (FNDs).. The FNDs are not only fluorescent, but

Fluorescent Nanodiamonds as Free Radical Sensors in Aging Yeast Cells: a baker’s yeast response to small diamonds with great potential!..