Cell ‘‘vision’’: complementary factor of protein corona in nanotoxicology† Morteza Mahmoudi, * abc Seyyed N. Saeedi-Eslami, c Mohammad A. Shokrgozar, c Kayhan Azadmanesh, d Maryam Hassanlou, c Hamid R. Kalhor, e Carmen Burtea, f Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser, g Sophie Laurent, f Sara Sheibani h and Hojatollah Vali h Received 14th May 2012, Accepted 20th June 2012 DOI: 10.1039/c2nr31185b Engineered nanoparticles are increasingly being considered for use as biosensors, imaging agents and drug delivery vehicles. Their versatility in design and applications make them an attractive proposition for new biological and biomedical approaches. Despite the remarkable speed of development in nanoscience, relatively little is known about the interaction of nanoscale objects with living systems. In a biological fluid, proteins associate with nanoparticles, and the amount and the presentation of the proteins on their surface could lead to a different in vivo response than an uncoated particle. Here, in addition to protein adsorption, we are going to introduce concept of cell ‘‘vision’’, which would be recognized as another crucial factor that should be considered for the safe design of any type of nanoparticles that will be used in specific biomedical applications. The impact of exactly the same nanoparticles on various cells is significantly different and could not be assumed for other cells; the possible mechanisms that justify this cellular response relate to the numerous detoxification strategies that any particular cell can utilize in response to nanoparticles. The uptake and defence mechanism could be considerably different according to the cell type. Thus, what the cell ‘‘sees’’, when it is faced with nanoparticles, is most likely dependent on the cell type. 1 Introduction In the context of several scientific reports showing the potential risks of a rapidly growing new field of science, such as nano- technology, there have been some novels that present a malicious view about the future of nanotechnology, among which Michael Crichton’s Prey is noteworthy. 1,2 Such a trend vividly suggests that not only scientists are worried about the future of nano- technology, but ordinary people may also have similar concerns. Indeed, there are few technical reports on the cytotoxicity of nanoparticles (NPs) (Definition for a NP; a nano-object [a material with one, two or three external dimensions in the nanoscale (1–100 nm)] with all three external dimensions in the nanoscale) 3 but instead consist of synthetic routes for obtaining NPs, creating a significant gap between a deep understanding of NP toxicity versus nanomaterial properties. 4–6 Hence, it is too difficult to predict the exact future risks and consequences from their qualities/quantities. Since NPs are small enough to enter almost all areas of the body such as organs, tissues, cells and organelles, they carry a great potential as a new approach to conventional medicine so called ‘‘nanomedicine’’. 7,8 Dawson’s group introduced the inno- vative idea on NP toxicity in 2007; 9,10 they focused on intro- ducing a new interface called ‘‘bio-nano’’ interface. More specifically, they showed that when nanoparticles enter a bio- logical environment, the nanoparticles become coated with various amounts of proteins that may transmit biological effects, such as accumulation of NPs in liver and in spleen due to the opsonin protein absorption at the surface of NPs. 11 Indeed, the resulting changes in protein conformation and/or avidity effects arising from the close spatial repetition of the same proteins. 10 In addition, when cells are exposed to NPs, the cellular proteins tend to become fibrillated (amyloid-like); the fibrillation may have significant effects on induction/propagation of neurode- generative diseases such as Parkinson’s. 12 In order to achieve a deep understanding of the biological effects of NPs, one requires knowledge of the equilibrium and kinetic binding properties of proteins/biomolecules that associate with the particles. A number a Department of Nanotechnology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Web: www.biospion.com. E-mail: Mahmoudi@biospion.com; Mahmoudi-m@TUMS.ac.ir b Nanotechnology Research Centre, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran c National Cell Bank, Pasteur Institute of Iran, Tehran, Iran d Virology Department, Pasteur Institute of Iran, Tehran, 1316943551 Iran e Biochemistry Research Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, Sharif University of Technology, P. O. Box 11365-9516, Tehran, Iran f Department of General, Organic, and Biomedical Chemistry, NMR and Molecular Imaging Laboratory, University of Mons, Avenue Maistriau, 19, B-7000 Mons, Belgium g Adolphe Merkle Institute, Universit e de Fribourg, CH-1723 Marly, Switzerland h Dept. of Earth & Planetary Sciences/Department of Anatomy & Cell Biology, McGill University, Montr eal, Qu ebec, Canada † Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/c2nr31185b This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012 Nanoscale, 2012, 4, 5461–5468 | 5461 Dynamic Article Links C < Nanoscale Cite this: Nanoscale, 2012, 4, 5461 www.rsc.org/nanoscale PAPER Downloaded by University of Missouri at Columbia on 18 March 2013 Published on 22 June 2012 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C2NR31185B View Article Online / Journal Homepage / Table of Contents for this issue