» Articles » PMID: 38667312

Quantitative Phase Imaging As Sensitive Screening Method for Nanoparticle-Induced Cytotoxicity Assessment

Overview
Journal Cells
Publisher MDPI
Date 2024 Apr 26
PMID 38667312
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The assessment of nanoparticle cytotoxicity is challenging due to the lack of customized and standardized guidelines for nanoparticle testing. Nanoparticles, with their unique properties, can interfere with biochemical test methods, so multiple tests are required to fully assess their cellular effects. For a more reliable and comprehensive assessment, it is therefore imperative to include methods in nanoparticle testing routines that are not affected by particles and allow for the efficient integration of additional molecular techniques into the workflow. Digital holographic microscopy (DHM), an interferometric variant of quantitative phase imaging (QPI), has been demonstrated as a promising method for the label-free assessment of the cytotoxic potential of nanoparticles. Due to minimal interactions with the sample, DHM allows for further downstream analyses. In this study, we investigated the capabilities of DHM in a multimodal approach to assess cytotoxicity by directly comparing DHM-detected effects on the same cell population with two downstream biochemical assays. Therefore, the dry mass increase in RAW 264.7 macrophages and NIH-3T3 fibroblast populations measured by quantitative DHM phase contrast after incubation with poly(alkyl cyanoacrylate) nanoparticles for 24 h was compared to the cytotoxic control digitonin, and cell culture medium control. Viability was then determined using a metabolic activity assay (WST-8). Moreover, to determine cell death, supernatants were analyzed for the release of the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase (LDH assay). In a comparative analysis, in which the average half-maximal effective concentration (EC) of the nanocarriers on the cells was determined, DHM was more sensitive to the effect of the nanoparticles on the used cell lines compared to the biochemical assays.

References
1.
BARER R . Refractometry and interferometry of living cells. J Opt Soc Am. 1957; 47(6):545-56. DOI: 10.1364/josa.47.000545. View

2.
Riss T, Moravec R . Use of multiple assay endpoints to investigate the effects of incubation time, dose of toxin, and plating density in cell-based cytotoxicity assays. Assay Drug Dev Technol. 2004; 2(1):51-62. DOI: 10.1089/154065804322966315. View

3.
Kocbach A, Totlandsdal A, Lag M, Refsnes M, Schwarze P . Differential binding of cytokines to environmentally relevant particles: a possible source for misinterpretation of in vitro results?. Toxicol Lett. 2007; 176(2):131-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2007.10.014. View

4.
Sun L, Liu H, Ye Y, Lei Y, Islam R, Tan S . Smart nanoparticles for cancer therapy. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2023; 8(1):418. PMC: 10622502. DOI: 10.1038/s41392-023-01642-x. View

5.
Strober W . Trypan blue exclusion test of cell viability. Curr Protoc Immunol. 2008; Appendix 3:Appendix 3B. DOI: 10.1002/0471142735.ima03bs21. View