Review reveals how nanoparticles affect oxidative stress and gene expression in human cell lines, indicating potential health risks.
Due to nanotechnology, there are new tools for delivering medication, carrying out diagnostics and treating diseases. One of its biggest issues is that nanoparticles (NPs) may cause oxidative stress which is linked to harmful effects on cells, inflammation and disease progression. It examines carefully the way engineered nanoparticles affect oxidative stress in human body cells, bringing updated information from nanotoxicology, molecular biology and bioanalysis. The first step is to classify nanoparticles as metallic, oxides and carbon types and note their physical and chemical characteristics, as well as the surface modifications needed for them to be taken in by cells and interact with them. HeLa, A549 and HepG2 cell lines which are derived from humans, are studied to determine if they represent disease changes and drug responses effectively. People pay special attention to the routes by which molecules are let into cells such as clathrin-mediated endocytosis and macropinocytosis and discuss how things like shape, size and charge impact localization and delivery of molecules. The basis of this review is to look at the mechanisms involved in oxidative stress when NPs are involved. Reactive oxygen species buildup, problems with mitochondrial function, lipid peroxidation and disturbance of redox homeostasis are important processes. We investigate if superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) function as biomarkers that are affected by dose and time. We also look at changes in genetic and epigenetic factors, examples being damage to DNA, changes in gene expression in antioxidant pathways and reprogramming of the epigenomic code by methylation and microRNAs. Using analytical methods such as qRT-PCR, RNA sequencing, proteomics and ROS-detection assays helps diagnose effects of nanoparticle stress. We ultimately focus on how translational research can contribute by examining risk assessment, smarter NP design and better integration into t
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shafiq et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: