Differential Genomic Effects on Signaling Pathways by Two Different CeO2 Nanoparticles in HepG2 Cells

• Published in: Journal of nanoscience and nanotechnology Vol. 15; no. 12; p. 9925
• Main Authors: Thai, Sheau-Fung, Wallace, Kathleen A, Jones, Carlton P, Ren, Hongzu, Castellon, Benjamin T, Crooks, James, Grulke, Eric A, Kitchin, Kirk T
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01-12-2015
• Subjects: Cerium - chemistry; Hep G2 Cells; Humans; Nanoparticles - chemistry; Particle Size; Signal Transduction - drug effects
• ISSN: 1533-4880
• DOI: 10.1166/jnn.2015.11631

To investigate genomic effects, human liver hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2) cells were exposed for three days to two different forms of nanoparticles both composed of CeO2 (0.3, 3 and 30 μg/mL). The two CeO2 nanoparticles had dry primary particle sizes of 8 nanometers {(M) made by NanoAmor} and 58 nanometers {(L) made by Alfa Aesar} and differ in various other physical-chemical properties as well. The smaller particle has stronger antioxidant properties, probably because it has higher Ce3+ levels on the particle surface, as well as more surface area per unit weight. Nanoparticle M showed a normal dose-response pattern with 363, 633 and 1273 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) at 0.3, 3 and 30 μg/mL, respectively. In contrast, nanoparticle L showed a puzzling dose-response pattern with the most DEGs found in the lowest exposure group with 1049, 303 and 323 DEGs at 0.3, 3 and 30 μg/mL, respectively. This systems biological genomic study showed that the major altered pathways by these two nano cerium oxides were protein synthesis, stress response, proliferation/cell cycle, cytoskeleton remodeling/actin polymerization and cellular metabolism. Some of the canonical pathways affected were mTOR signaling, EIF2 signaling, fatty acid activation, G2/M DNA damage checkpoint regulation, glycolysis and protein ubiquitination. These two CeO2 nanoparticles differed considerably in their genomic effects. M is more active than L in respect to altering the pathways of mitochondrial dysfunction, acute phase response, apoptosis, 14-3-3 mediated signaling, remodeling of epithelial adherens junction signaling, actin nucleation by ARP-WASP complex, altered TCA cycle and elevated fatty acid concentrations by metabolomics. However, L is more active than M in respect to the pathways of NRF2-mediated stress response and hepatic fibrosis/hepatic stellate cell activation. One major difference in the cell response to nano M and L is that nano M caused the Warburg effect while nano L did not.