Review

Biophysical insights into nanomaterial-induced DNA damage: mechanisms, challenges, and future directions

  • Received: 19 July 2024 Revised: 23 August 2024 Accepted: 06 September 2024 Published: 11 September 2024
  • Nanomaterials have garnered significant attention due to their unique properties and wide-ranging applications in medicine and biophysics. However, their interactions with biological systems, particularly DNA, raise critical concerns about genotoxicity and potential long-term health risks. This review delves into the biophysical mechanisms underlying nanomaterial-induced DNA damage, highlighting recent insights, current challenges, and future research directions. We explore how the physicochemical properties of nanomaterials influence their interaction with DNA, the pathways through which they induce damage, and the biophysical methods employed to study these processes.

    Citation: James C.L. Chow. Biophysical insights into nanomaterial-induced DNA damage: mechanisms, challenges, and future directions[J]. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(3): 340-369. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024019

    Related Papers:

    [1] James C. L. Chow . Recent progress in Monte Carlo simulation on gold nanoparticle radiosensitization. AIMS Biophysics, 2018, 5(4): 231-244. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2018.4.231
    [2] Zaynah Sheeraz, James C.L. Chow . Evaluation of dose enhancement with gold nanoparticles in kilovoltage radiotherapy using the new EGS geometry library in Monte Carlo simulation. AIMS Biophysics, 2021, 8(4): 337-345. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2021027
    [3] Tomohiro Yanao, Sosuke Sano, Kenichi Yoshikawa . Chiral selection in wrapping, crossover, and braiding of DNA mediated by asymmetric bend-writhe elasticity. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(4): 666-694. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.4.666
    [4] Masoud Jabbary, Hossein Rajabi . High-resolution phantom of a nephron for radiation nephrotoxicity evaluation in biophysical simulations. AIMS Biophysics, 2022, 9(2): 147-160. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2022013
    [5] Théo Lebeaupin, Hafida Sellou, Gyula Timinszky, Sébastien Huet . Chromatin dynamics at DNA breaks: what, how and why?. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(4): 458-475. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.4.458
    [6] Qiao Yi Chen, Max Costa, Hong Sun . Structure and function of histone acetyltransferase MOF. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(4): 555-569. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.4.555
    [7] Klemen Bohinc, Leo Lue . On the electrostatics of DNA in chromatin. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(1): 75-87. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.1.75
    [8] Abbas Abed Noor Al-Owaidi, Mohammed Abdullah Jebor . Evaluation of L-methioninase as a targeted anticancer therapy in ovarian cancer and glioblastoma. AIMS Biophysics, 2025, 12(2): 197-220. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2025012
    [9] Mostean Bahreinipour, Hajar Zarei, Fariba Dashtestani, Jamal Rashidiani, Khadijeh Eskandari, Seyed Ali Moussavi Zarandi, Susan Kabudanian Ardestani, Hiroshi Watabe . Radioprotective effect of nanoceria and magnetic flower-like iron oxide microparticles on gamma radiation-induced damage in BSA protein. AIMS Biophysics, 2021, 8(2): 124-142. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2021010
    [10] Arsha Moorthy, Alireza Sarvestani, Whitney Massock, Chamaree de Silva . Twisting and extension: Application of magnetic tweezers to DNA studies. AIMS Biophysics, 2023, 10(3): 317-346. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2023020
  • Nanomaterials have garnered significant attention due to their unique properties and wide-ranging applications in medicine and biophysics. However, their interactions with biological systems, particularly DNA, raise critical concerns about genotoxicity and potential long-term health risks. This review delves into the biophysical mechanisms underlying nanomaterial-induced DNA damage, highlighting recent insights, current challenges, and future research directions. We explore how the physicochemical properties of nanomaterials influence their interaction with DNA, the pathways through which they induce damage, and the biophysical methods employed to study these processes.



    Nanomaterials are materials with at least one dimension in the nanometer scale (1–100 nm). At this size, they exhibit unique physical, chemical, and biological properties distinct from their bulk counterparts [1]. These properties arise from the increased surface area to volume ratio, quantum effects, and the predominance of surface atoms [2]. Nanomaterials can be composed of various substances, including metals, semiconductors, polymers, and ceramics, each offering specific functionalities [3]. Their tunable characteristics make them highly versatile for a broad range of applications across multiple fields such as wound healing [4][6]. In biophysics and medicine, nanomaterials have revolutionized diagnostics and treatment methods. They are used in drug delivery systems to transport therapeutic agents directly to target cells, thereby minimizing side effects and improving efficacy [7]. Nanoparticles are also employed in imaging techniques to enhance the contrast and resolution of biological tissues, aiding in the early detection of diseases. Moreover, nanomaterials play a crucial role in the development of novel biomaterials for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine [8]. In the realm of electronics, nanomaterials contribute to the miniaturization and enhancement of devices. Carbon nanotubes and graphene are examples of nanomaterials that have significantly impacted the development of faster, smaller, and more efficient transistors and integrated circuits [9]. Moreover, they are key components in the creation of flexible and wearable electronic devices, which are becoming increasingly popular in consumer electronics and medical monitoring systems [10]. Environmental applications of nanomaterials are equally significant. They are utilized in water treatment processes to remove contaminants and pathogens through adsorption and catalytic degradation [11]. Nanomaterials also aid in air purification by capturing and neutralizing pollutants. In agriculture, they are used to develop smart delivery systems for fertilizers and pesticides, improving crop yield and reducing environmental impact [12]. Despite their numerous advantages, the widespread use of nanomaterials raises concerns about their potential impact on human health and the environment. Understanding how nanomaterials interact with biological systems, particularly their ability to induce DNA damage, is crucial [13].

    The study of nanomaterial-induced DNA damage is important due to the critical role DNA plays in maintaining cellular function and genetic integrity. DNA damage can lead to mutations, which may cause various diseases, including cancer. As nanomaterials are increasingly integrated into medical treatments, consumer products, and industrial applications [14], understanding their potential genotoxic effects is essential to safeguard public health. Unlike traditional materials, the unique properties of nanomaterials may result in unforeseen interactions with cellular components, leading to novel mechanisms of DNA damage that are not yet fully understood. Moreover, the ability of nanomaterials to penetrate biological barriers and accumulate in tissues poses significant risks [15]. Their small size allows them to interact directly with cellular structures, including the nucleus where DNA resides. Various studies have shown that nanomaterials can generate reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are highly reactive molecules capable of causing oxidative stress and subsequent DNA damage [16][18]. Investigating these interactions helps in assessing the long-term safety of nanomaterials and developing guidelines for their safe use. Figure 1 illustrates the pathways through which various types of nanomaterials can cause DNA damage. The figure shows that nanomaterials can interact with DNA directly, generate ROS, and so on. These interactions lead to various forms of DNA damage, such as single-strand (SSBs) and double-strand breaks (DSBs), mutations, chromosomal aberrations, and, ultimately, cell death.

    Figure 1.  Block diagram illustrating the mechanisms of DNA damage induced by various types of nanoparticles.

    Nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy (NPRT) represents a promising advancement in cancer treatment by leveraging the unique properties of nanoparticles to improve the efficacy of conventional radiotherapy [19]. Nanoparticles, such as gold and other high atomic number elements, enhance radiation therapy by increasing the local absorption of radiation, which leads to the production of secondary electrons and ROS that cause additional DNA damage in cancer cells [20]. The primary mechanism involves the generation of ROS, which induce oxidative stress, resulting in various forms of DNA damage, including SSBs, DSBs, and base modifications. DSBs are particularly detrimental and challenging to repair, making NPRT highly effective at destroying cancer cells [21]. In addition, nanoparticles selectively accumulate in tumor tissues due to the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect, concentrating the radiation dose in the tumor and sparing healthy tissues [22]. However, the integration of nanoparticles in radiotherapy raises concerns about potential off-target effects and long-term safety, as increased ROS production and DNA damage in normal cells must be carefully managed [23]. Thus, while NPRT offers significant potential for more effective and targeted cancer therapies, ongoing research is essential to optimize nanoparticle formulations, dosages, and delivery methods to maximize therapeutic benefits while minimizing risks to healthy tissues.

    A comprehensive review of nanomaterial-induced DNA damage due to nanomaterials based on biophysics is crucial. First, it consolidates the existing knowledge, providing a clear picture of the current understanding of how different types of nanomaterials interact with DNA. This is particularly important given the rapid advancements in nanotechnology and the continuous development of new nanomaterials with diverse properties and applications [24]. A thorough review allows researchers and regulatory bodies to stay informed about potential risks and emerging trends in the field. Second, a review identifies gaps in the current research, highlighting areas that require further investigation. By synthesizing data from various studies, it can pinpoint inconsistencies and unresolved questions, thereby guiding future research efforts. This is essential for developing more accurate risk assessment and safety protocols for nanomaterial usage. Finally, a review on this topic serves as an educational resource for scientists, policymakers, and the public. It raises awareness about the potential health risks associated with nanomaterials and underscores the importance of ongoing research and regulation. As nanomaterials continue to be incorporated into numerous products and technologies, ensuring their safe application is a shared responsibility that relies on informed decision-making and evidence-based policies. This review aims to provide the necessary insights and direction to achieve these goals.

    Nanomaterials can directly interact with DNA molecules, leading to various forms of damage. This interaction occurs through several mechanisms, including the physical binding of nanoparticles to DNA strands, which can disrupt the double-helix structure and interfere with replication and transcription processes [25]. Some nanoparticles may form covalent bonds with DNA bases, resulting in the formation of DNA adducts that can cause mutations if not properly repaired. Moreover, the physical presence of nanoparticles within the cellular environment can induce mechanical stress on DNA, leading to strand breaks and other structural alterations [26]. The extent and nature of these interactions depend on the specific characteristics of the nanomaterial, such as size, shape, surface charge, and chemical composition, highlighting the importance of understanding these properties to assess the potential genotoxic effects of nanomaterials.

    One of the primary mechanisms by which nanomaterials induce DNA damage is through the generation of ROS. Upon exposure to nanomaterials, cells often experience oxidative stress due to an imbalance between ROS production and antioxidant defenses [27]. Many nanomaterials, particularly metal-based ones like titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, can catalyze the formation of ROS, including superoxide anions, hydroxyl radicals, and hydrogen peroxide [28]. These highly reactive molecules can cause various DNA lesions, including base modifications, SSBs, and DSBs. For instance, ROS can induce base modifications, such as 8-oxoguanine, leading to mispairing during DNA replication [29]. SSBs can occur when oxidative damage affects the DNA backbone, while DSBs represent a more severe form of damage that can result from the accumulation of multiple SSBs or direct interaction with ROS [30]. The oxidative damage to DNA compromises its integrity, leading to mutations, genomic instability, and potentially carcinogenesis if the damage is not adequately repaired [31]. Understanding the conditions and specific properties of nanomaterials that influence ROS generation is crucial for evaluating the genotoxic risks associated with nanomaterial exposure. Figure 2 illustrates how nanomaterials cause DNA damage through both direct mechanisms (direct interaction with DNA) and indirect mechanisms (generation of ROS).

    Figure 2.  Direct and indirect effects of nanomaterials on DNA damage [32].

    The physicochemical properties of nanomaterials play a crucial role in determining their potential to cause DNA damage. Smaller nanoparticles typically exhibit higher reactivity and can more easily penetrate cellular membranes, increasing their likelihood of reaching and interacting with DNA [33]. The shape of nanomaterials can affect their cellular uptake and intracellular distribution, with certain shapes, such as rods or fibers, potentially causing more physical disruption than spherical particles [34]. Surface charge impacts the electrostatic interactions between nanomaterials and cellular components, with positively charged nanoparticles often showing greater cellular uptake and genotoxicity due to their attraction to negatively charged cell membranes and nucleic acids [35]. Additionally, surface coatings and functionalization can either enhance or mitigate DNA damage by altering the stability, solubility, and reactivity of nanomaterials [36]. Understanding these physicochemical properties is essential for predicting and controlling the genotoxic effects of nanomaterials, guiding safer design and application in various fields.

    The genotoxic and mutagenic effects of nanomaterials are critical aspects of their potential impact on human health. Genotoxicity refers to the ability of nanomaterials to cause damage to genetic material, leading to mutations, chromosomal fragmentation, and alterations in gene expression. This can occur through direct interactions with DNA or indirectly via the generation of ROS and other free radicals. Mutagenicity, a subset of genotoxicity, specifically involves changes in the DNA sequence that can result in permanent alterations to the genetic code [37]. Various assessment methods, such as the comet assay, micronucleus assay, and the Ames test, are used to evaluate the genotoxic and mutagenic potential of nanomaterials [38]. These methods help identify the types and extent of genetic damage, providing insights into the mechanisms involved. The induction of mutations and chromosomal aberrations by nanomaterials can lead to long-term genetic consequences, including cancer and hereditary diseases, emphasizing the importance of thorough evaluation and regulation [39]. Understanding the genotoxic and mutagenic properties of different nanomaterials is essential for developing safer materials and mitigating potential health risks associated with their use.

    Metal-based nanomaterials, including gold, silver, and iron oxide nanoparticles, are increasingly used in various fields such as biomedical applications, electronics, and environmental remediation, due to their unique physicochemical properties [40]. Their small size and high surface area-to-volume ratio enhance their interaction with biological systems, facilitating applications like targeted drug delivery, imaging contrast enhancement, and therapeutic treatments. However, these same properties also contribute to their potential to induce DNA damage, which is a critical concern for their safe application in biomedicine. For instance, gold nanoparticles are known for their biocompatibility and are widely used in drug delivery and cancer therapy. However, studies have shown that gold nanoparticles can generate ROS upon exposure to biological environments or external stimuli like light, leading to oxidative stress that results in DNA damage, such as SSBs and DSBs [41]. Additionally, silver nanoparticles, which are valued for their antimicrobial properties, have been observed to cause significant DNA damage through similar ROS-mediated mechanisms [42]. Silver nanoparticles can induce oxidative modifications of DNA bases, such as 8-oxoguanine, which can lead to mutations and genomic instability if not properly repaired [43]. Iron oxide nanoparticles, commonly used as contrast agents in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and for targeted drug delivery, can also catalyze the generation of ROS, resulting in oxidative DNA damage. Studies have reported that exposure to iron oxide nanoparticles can lead to significant levels of DNA strand breaks and chromosomal aberrations, further underscoring the need for careful assessment of their genotoxic potential in biomedical applications [44]. Furthermore, the direct physical interactions between metal nanoparticles and DNA molecules can disrupt the double-helix structure, potentially interfering with essential cellular processes and compromising genetic stability [44].

    Carbon-based nanomaterials, including carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphene, and fullerenes, have garnered significant attention due to their exceptional mechanical, electrical, and thermal properties. CNTs, in particular, exhibit high tensile strength and electrical conductivity, making them ideal for applications in electronics, composites, and energy storage [45]. Graphene, a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a two-dimensional lattice, possesses remarkable strength and conductivity, influencing advancements in flexible electronics, sensors, and biomedical devices. Fullerenes, spherical carbon molecules like C60, are valued for their unique cage-like structure and ability to act as radical scavengers or photosensitizers in photodynamic therapy [46]. Despite their promising applications, carbon-based nanomaterials can also pose risks related to DNA damage. Studies suggest that CNTs and graphene can induce oxidative stress and inflammation, potentially leading to DNA strand breaks and mutagenesis [47].

    Polymeric nanomaterials, including synthetic polymers like dendrimers and micelles, as well as natural polymers such as chitosan and albumin nanoparticles, offer versatile platforms for drug delivery, imaging, and tissue engineering [48]. Synthetic polymers are engineered to have precise surface functionalities, allowing for tailored interactions with biological systems and controlled release of therapeutic agents [49]. Natural polymers, derived from renewable sources, often exhibit biocompatibility and biodegradability, making them suitable for biomedical applications without significant toxicity concerns. However, both synthetic and natural polymeric nanomaterials can induce DNA damage through mechanisms such as oxidative stress from degradation products or interactions with cellular components [50].

    Ceramic and silica-based nanomaterials, such as titanium dioxide (TiO2) and silica nanoparticles, are widely utilized in diverse fields ranging from catalysis and electronics to biomedical applications [51]. TiO2 nanoparticles are known for their photocatalytic properties and are commonly used in environmental remediation and sunscreen formulations [52]. Silica nanoparticles are particularly valued for their biocompatibility, surface functionalization capabilities, and role as drug carriers in targeted therapies [53]. Notably, while these nanomaterials can induce DNA damage primarily through the generation of ROS upon exposure to UV radiation or cellular environments, studies indicate that their overall genotoxic effects tend to be minimal compared to other nanomaterials. ROS-mediated oxidative stress can lead to DNA strand breaks, base modifications, and genomic instability [54]. However, the physicochemical characteristics of ceramic and silica-based nanomaterials significantly influence their interactions with biological systems, suggesting that careful selection and characterization can mitigate potential genotoxic effects. Table 1 summarizes different nanomaterial types, their applications, and potential for DNA damage.

    Table 1.  Overview of nanomaterial types, their key properties, applications, and potential for DNA damage.
    Nanomaterial type Key properties Applications Potential for DNA damage References
    Metal-based nanomaterials Small size, high surface area-to-volume ratio; efficient interaction with biological systems Targeted drug delivery, imaging contrast enhancement, therapeutic treatments, electronics, environmental remediation Catalyze ROS generation leading to oxidative stress, DNA strand breaks, base modifications; direct disruption of DNA structure [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]
    Carbon-based nanomaterials Exceptional mechanical, electrical, and thermal properties; radical scavenging and photosensitizing abilities Electronics, composites, energy storage, flexible electronics, sensors, biomedical devices, photodynamic therapy Induce oxidative stress and inflammation, potentially causing DNA strand breaks and mutagenesis [45], [46], [47]
    Polymeric nanomaterials Versatile platforms with precise surface functionalities, biocompatibility, and biodegradability Drug delivery, imaging, tissue engineering Oxidative stress from degradation products and interactions with cellular components leading to DNA damage [48], [49], [50]
    Ceramic and silica-based nanomaterials Photocatalytic properties, biocompatibility, surface functionalization capabilities, minimal genotoxicity Catalysis, electronics, biomedical applications, environmental remediation, sunscreen formulations ROS generation leading to DNA strand breaks, base modifications, genomic instability; generally minimal genotoxic effects [51], [52], [53], [54]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    This section explores how the physicochemical properties of nanomaterials—such as size, shape, surface chemistry, aggregation behavior, and chemical composition—affect their interactions with DNA. Among these properties, size and surface chemistry are often the most dominant factors in inducing DNA damage.

    The size and shape of nanomaterials are critical factors influencing their interaction with biological systems, including their potential to cause DNA damage [21]. Nanoparticles can vary widely in size, typically ranging from 1 to 100 nm. This size range allows them to interact uniquely with cells and biological molecules, crossing cellular membranes and even entering the nucleus [26]. Smaller nanoparticles often have a higher surface area-to-volume ratio, which can enhance their reactivity and increase their potential to induce oxidative stress, leading to DNA damage [1]. Moreover, the size of nanoparticles can influence their bio-distribution, cellular uptake, and clearance from the body. In radiotherapy, Monte Carlo simulations have been conducted to examine the impact of gold nanoparticle size on DNA damage. Various sizes of gold nanoparticles were simulated in association with DNA during electron beam irradiation (Figure 3). The results showed that reducing the nanoparticle size while maintaining the same mass of gold increases the total number of strand breaks [21].

    Figure 3.  Visualization of (a) a single irradiated gold nanoparticle with a 5 nm radius interacting with a DNA molecule; (b) a single irradiated gold nanoparticle with a 3.97 nm radius interacting with a DNA molecule; (c) a single irradiated gold nanoparticle with a 3.15 nm radius interacting with a DNA molecule. The red tracks depict the paths of secondary electrons in the simulation [21].

    Research has shown that both the size and shape of nanomaterials [55][57] can influence the generation of ROS, a primary mechanism of DNA damage [58]. Smaller nanoparticles can catalyze the production of ROS more efficiently, leading to oxidative damage of DNA [59]. This oxidative stress can result in a variety of DNA lesions, including SSBs and DSBs, base modifications, and cross-linking. Therefore, careful control and characterization of nanomaterials are imperative in assessing their safety and understanding their mechanisms of genotoxicity.

    Surface chemistry and functionalization of nanomaterials are pivotal in determining their interaction with biological systems, including their potential to cause DNA damage. The surface properties of nanomaterials, such as surface charge, hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity, and the presence of specific functional groups, dictate how these particles interact with cellular membranes, proteins, and nucleic acids [40],[60]. For instance, nanoparticles with a positive surface charge are more likely to interact with the negatively charged cell membranes and DNA, potentially leading to increased cellular uptake and direct DNA binding [61]. This can enhance the genotoxic potential of the nanomaterials through direct physical interactions and disruption of the DNA structure.

    Functionalization refers to the modification of the nanoparticle surface with various chemical groups, ligands, or biomolecules to improve their stability, biocompatibility, and targeting capabilities. Functionalization can significantly alter the biological behavior of nanomaterials [62]. For example, coating nanoparticles with polyethylene glycol (PEG) can reduce protein adsorption and prolong circulation time in the bloodstream, potentially leading to different bio-distribution and reduced non-specific interactions with cells [63]. Conversely, functionalizing nanoparticles with targeting ligands, such as antibodies or peptides, can increase their specificity toward certain cell types or tissues, including tumor cells, but may also enhance the localized DNA damage in those targeted cells.

    The surface chemistry of nanomaterials also plays a crucial role in the generation of reactive ROS, which is a primary mechanism of DNA damage [64]. Surface functional groups can act as catalytic sites for ROS production, leading to oxidative stress within cells. For instance, nanoparticles with hydroxyl groups or other reactive moieties can facilitate the formation of ROS in the presence of cellular reducing agents or light, causing oxidative damage to the DNA [65]. Therefore, understanding how surface chemistry influences ROS generation is essential for predicting and mitigating the genotoxic effects of nanomaterials.

    Aggregation and dispersion behavior of nanomaterials are critical factors influencing their interaction with biological systems and their potential to cause DNA damage [66]. Nanoparticles tend to aggregate due to van der Waals forces, magnetic interactions, and other inter-particle forces. The degree of aggregation can significantly impact the biological activity of nanoparticles, as aggregated particles may exhibit different cellular uptake pathways and reduced surface area compared to well-dispersed nanoparticles. Aggregation can affect the distribution, retention, and clearance of nanoparticles in biological environments, thereby influencing their overall genotoxic potential.

    In biological media, the dispersion state of nanomaterials is influenced by several factors, including ionic strength, pH, and the presence of proteins and other biomolecules. For instance, high ionic strength or low pH conditions can promote nanoparticle aggregation, reducing their availability for cellular interaction and uptake [67]. Conversely, the presence of proteins and other biomolecules can stabilize nanoparticles and prevent aggregation through steric and electrostatic stabilization mechanisms. The stability of nanoparticle dispersion in biological fluids is crucial for maintaining their reactivity and interaction with cellular components, including DNA.

    Aggregation can influence the generation of ROS, a primary mechanism of DNA damage [68]. Well-dispersed nanoparticles have a larger surface area available for catalytic reactions, potentially leading to higher ROS production and oxidative stress. On the other hand, aggregated nanoparticles may exhibit reduced reactivity and lower ROS generation [69]. The extent of aggregation can also affect the localization of nanoparticles within cells, with well-dispersed particles being more likely to interact directly with the nucleus and DNA.

    The behavior of nanoparticles in terms of aggregation and dispersion also impacts their interactions with other cellular components, such as proteins and lipids [70]. Aggregated nanoparticles may be more prone to opsonization and clearance by the immune system, reducing their effective concentration in target tissues and cells. In contrast, well-dispersed nanoparticles may have enhanced cellular uptake and intracellular trafficking, increasing their potential to induce DNA damage. The formation of a protein corona on the nanoparticle surface can further influence aggregation behavior and subsequent biological interactions [67]. The composition and dynamics of the protein corona are affected by the dispersion state of the nanoparticles, which in turn modulates their genotoxic potential [71].

    The chemical composition and crystallinity of nanomaterials are fundamental factors that determine their interaction with biological systems and their potential to cause DNA damage [72]. Nanomaterials can be composed of a wide variety of elements and compounds, including metals, metal oxides, carbon-based materials, and polymers. Each type of nanomaterial exhibits unique properties that influence its biological behavior and genotoxic potential. For example, metal nanoparticles such as gold, silver, and iron oxide have distinct chemical properties that affect their reactivity, cellular uptake, and mechanisms of DNA damage [73].

    The chemical composition of nanomaterials influences their ability to generate ROS, a primary mechanism of DNA damage. Metal and metal oxide nanoparticles, such as titanium dioxide (TiO2) and zinc oxide (ZnO), are known to catalyze ROS production under various conditions, leading to oxidative stress and DNA damage [74]. The presence of specific elements or compounds in the nanomaterial composition can also introduce additional mechanisms of genotoxicity, such as ion release and interaction with cellular enzymes.

    Crystallinity, which refers to the degree of structural order in a solid, also plays a significant role in determining the biological interactions and genotoxic potential of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials can exist in different crystalline phases, each with distinct physical and chemical properties. For example, titanium dioxide can exist in anatase and rutile phases, with the anatase phase being more photocatalytically active and capable of generating higher levels of ROS under UV light exposure [75]. The crystallinity of nanomaterials affects their electronic structure, surface reactivity, and interaction with biological molecules, all of which contribute to their potential to induce DNA damage.

    The crystallinity of nanomaterials can influence their mechanical properties and stability in biological environments. Highly crystalline nanoparticles tend to be more stable and less prone to degradation, which can affect their persistence in biological systems and their long-term genotoxic effects [76]. Conversely, amorphous or less crystalline nanomaterials may degrade more easily, potentially releasing toxic ions or fragments that can interact with DNA and other cellular components. The crystallinity of nanomaterials also affects their interaction with cellular membranes, proteins, and DNA, influencing their uptake, intracellular localization, and mechanisms of genotoxicity [77].

    UV-visible spectroscopy is a fundamental technique in the study of DNA damage, offering insights into the structural and conformational changes in DNA upon interaction with nanomaterials [78]. By measuring the absorbance of UV and visible light by DNA samples, researchers can detect alterations in the DNA's electronic structure. These changes often manifest as shifts in the absorbance maxima or variations in absorbance intensity, which can indicate modifications such as strand breaks, cross-linking, or base modifications. UV-visible spectroscopy is particularly useful for quantifying the concentration of nucleic acids and assessing their purity, making it an essential tool for preliminary analysis in DNA damage studies.

    Fluorescence spectroscopy leverages the emission of light by fluorescent molecules to study DNA damage. When DNA interacts with certain nanomaterials, it can lead to the formation of fluorescent adducts or the quenching of inherent fluorescence signals. By labeling DNA with fluorescent probes, researchers can monitor real-time interactions and detect minute changes in the DNA structure. This technique is highly sensitive and allows for the detection of low levels of DNA damage [79]. In addition, fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) can be used to study the proximity and interaction between DNA molecules and nanomaterials, providing detailed information on the spatial arrangement and conformational changes within the DNA [80].

    Circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy is a powerful method for examining the secondary structure of DNA and its changes upon interaction with nanomaterials. CD spectroscopy measures the differential absorption of left- and right-handed circularly polarized light, which is sensitive to the chiral nature of DNA molecules [81]. This technique can reveal alterations in the DNA helical structure, such as transitions between A-form, B-form, and Z-form DNA, as well as more subtle changes induced by nanomaterial binding. CD spectroscopy provides valuable information about the conformational integrity of DNA, helping researchers understand the extent and nature of structural perturbations caused by nanomaterial exposure.

    AFM is a high-resolution imaging technique that provides detailed topographical maps of DNA molecules at the nanoscale. By scanning a sharp tip over the DNA sample's surface, AFM generates three-dimensional images that reveal structural changes in DNA induced by nanomaterials. This technique allows researchers to observe physical alterations such as strand breaks, cross-linking, and aggregation [82]. AFM is particularly advantageous for studying DNA in its native environment without requiring extensive sample preparation, thus preserving the integrity of the DNA and providing accurate insights into nanomaterial-induced damage.

    TEM is another powerful imaging tool used to visualize DNA and its interactions with nanomaterials at an atomic level. TEM operates by transmitting a beam of electrons through a thin DNA sample, creating high-resolution images that can reveal detailed structural information. This technique is invaluable for identifying nanoscale structural damage, such as DSBs and the formation of DNA-nanomaterial complexes [83]. TEM's high resolution enables the detection of subtle changes in DNA morphology, making it a crucial method for studying the precise impact of nanomaterials on DNA integrity.

    Confocal microscopy offers a versatile and non-invasive approach to studying DNA damage in living cells. This technique uses laser scanning and fluorescence to create detailed, three-dimensional images of cellular structures, including DNA. By labeling DNA with fluorescent markers, researchers can track the localization and extent of DNA damage within the cellular context. Confocal microscopy is particularly useful for real-time monitoring of DNA repair processes and understanding how nanomaterials affect these dynamics [84]. The ability to visualize DNA damage in live cells provides critical insights into the biological consequences of nanomaterial exposure and the cellular responses to such damage.

    MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry is a powerful analytical technique used to identify and characterize DNA damage at a molecular level [85]. By embedding DNA samples in a matrix and ionizing them with a laser, MALDI-TOF measures the mass-to-charge ratio of the resulting ions. This allows for the precise determination of molecular weights and the identification of DNA modifications, such as adducts formed by nanomaterial interactions. MALDI-TOF is particularly useful for detecting and characterizing bulky DNA adducts and oxidative lesions, providing valuable information on the types and extent of damage induced by nanomaterials.

    Electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) is another highly sensitive technique for studying DNA damage [86]. ESI-MS ionizes DNA molecules in solution by applying a high voltage, producing ions that are then analyzed based on their mass-to-charge ratio. This technique is effective in identifying a wide range of DNA modifications, including small base modifications, cross-links, and strand breaks. ESI-MS is particularly advantageous for its ability to analyze intact DNA strands and their modifications, offering detailed insights into the specific sites and nature of damage. Its high sensitivity and accuracy make ESI-MS an essential tool for elucidating the molecular mechanisms of nanomaterial-induced DNA damage.

    Gel electrophoresis is a widely used technique for analyzing DNA damage, offering a straightforward and effective method for separating DNA fragments based on size. In this technique, DNA samples are loaded into a gel matrix, and an electric field is applied to drive the migration of DNA fragments through the gel. Damaged DNA, such as fragments resulting from strand breaks, migrates differently compared to intact DNA, allowing researchers to visualize and quantify the extent of DNA damage [87]. Techniques such as agarose gel electrophoresis and polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) are commonly employed to analyze the fragmentation patterns, providing insights into the types of damage induced by nanomaterials, including SSBs and DSBs.

    The comet assay, also known as single-cell gel electrophoresis, is a highly sensitive method for detecting DNA damage at the single-cell level [88]. In this assay, cells are embedded in agarose gel on a microscope slide, lysed to release DNA, and subjected to electrophoresis. Damaged DNA migrates out of the cell nucleus, forming a “comet tail” when stained and viewed under a fluorescence microscope. The extent and intensity of the comet tail provide quantitative measures of DNA damage, such as strand breaks and alkali-labile sites. This technique is particularly useful for evaluating the genotoxic effects of nanomaterials in various cell types, allowing for the assessment of both initial DNA damage and repair capacity [89].

    NMR spectroscopy is a powerful analytical technique used to investigate the structural and dynamic properties of molecules, including DNA [90]. NMR operates by exploiting the magnetic properties of atomic nuclei. When placed in a strong magnetic field and exposed to radiofrequency radiation, certain nuclei resonate at characteristic frequencies. By measuring these resonances, researchers can obtain detailed information about the molecular structure, dynamics, and interactions. In the context of DNA, NMR can reveal important details about the helical structure, base pairing, and conformational changes induced by interactions with nanomaterials.

    NMR spectroscopy is particularly valuable for studying the interactions between DNA and nanomaterials at a molecular level [24]. It provides insights into how nanomaterials influence the conformation and stability of DNA. For instance, NMR can identify binding sites of nanomaterials on the DNA molecule, detect changes in the DNA's secondary structure, and monitor the dynamics of these interactions over time [91]. This technique is sensitive to subtle structural perturbations, such as those caused by nanomaterial-induced oxidative damage or the formation of DNA adducts. By analyzing these interactions, NMR helps elucidate the mechanisms by which nanomaterials induce DNA damage, offering critical information for understanding their potential genotoxic effects.

    MD simulations are particularly effective for exploring the interactions between DNA and nanomaterials at an atomic level [92]. By modeling these interactions, researchers can investigate how nanomaterials influence DNA structure, dynamics, and function. Simulations can reveal binding affinities, preferred binding sites, and the structural perturbations induced by nanomaterials. For example, MD simulations can show how nanomaterials might cause DNA bending, unwinding, or the formation of non-canonical structures. They can also simulate the potential generation of ROS by nanomaterials and their subsequent impact on DNA integrity [93]. Through these detailed simulations, researchers can gain a comprehensive understanding of the molecular mechanisms by which nanomaterials induce DNA damage.

    MC simulations play a critical role in nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy, particularly for assessing and optimizing DNA dosimetry and damage [94],[95]. This innovative therapeutic approach harnesses nanoparticles to augment radiation delivery to cancer cells, thereby enhancing treatment efficacy while minimizing harm to adjacent healthy tissues [96]. MC simulations enable researchers to model intricate interactions between DNA and nanoparticles when exposed to radiation. They accurately simulate the distribution and energy deposition of radiation within DNA, offering precise dosimetric insights [97]. By modeling the generation of secondary electrons and reactive species, MC simulations predict various forms of DNA damage, including SSBs and DSBs, as well as oxidative lesions [98]. This comprehensive molecular understanding elucidates how nanoparticles amplify radiation-induced DNA damage, informing refinements in therapeutic strategies. Moreover, MC simulations aid in designing nanoparticles with optimal attributes for enhancing radiotherapy effectiveness, thereby advancing targeted cancer treatments.

    In vitro studies on nanomaterial-induced DNA damage frequently employ a variety of cell culture models to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and effects. Commonly used cell lines include human epithelial cells, fibroblasts, and cancer cell lines such as HeLa and A549. These models provide a controlled environment to observe the direct interactions between nanomaterials and cellular components [99],[100]. The primary mechanisms by which nanomaterials induce DNA damage in vitro include the generation of ROS and direct interactions with DNA. ROS generation can lead to oxidative stress, resulting in damage to cellular components including lipids, proteins, and DNA. In addition, direct interaction with DNA can cause physical disruptions such as strand breaks or the formation of DNA adducts, which interfere with normal cellular functions and can lead to mutagenesis [101],[102].

    Studies have identified several types of DNA damage induced by nanomaterials, including SSBs, DSBs, and the formation of DNA adducts. SSBs are the most common form of damage, often resulting from oxidative stress. DSBs, though less common, are more severe and can lead to chromosomal aberrations and cell death if not properly repaired [103],[104]. Significant in vitro studies have demonstrated the genotoxic potential of various nanomaterials. For instance, silver nanoparticles have been shown to induce significant levels of oxidative DNA damage and apoptosis in human lung epithelial cells [105]. Similarly, titanium dioxide nanoparticles have been found to cause DNA strand breaks and oxidative damage in human keratinocytes [106].

    In vivo studies provide critical insights into the systemic effects of nanomaterials and their potential to cause DNA damage in living organisms. Commonly used animal models include rodents such as mice and rats, as well as zebrafish, which offer advantages in terms of genetic similarities to humans and ease of handling. These models allow researchers to study the bio-distribution, metabolism, and long-term effects of nanomaterials following different routes of exposure, such as inhalation, injection, and oral administration [107],[108]. The mechanisms by which nanomaterials induce DNA damage in vivo are complex and multifaceted. Once inside the organism, nanomaterials can generate ROS, leading to oxidative stress and subsequent DNA damage. Additionally, nanomaterials can interact directly with cellular components in various tissues, causing physical disruptions and initiating inflammatory responses that contribute to DNA damage [109],[110].

    In vivo studies have reported various types of DNA damage caused by nanomaterials, including SSBs, DSBs, and chromosomal aberrations. For example, exposure to titanium dioxide nanoparticles has been shown to cause significant DNA damage in liver and lung tissues of mice, manifested as increased levels of SSBs and DSBs [111]. Similarly, C60 fullerenes and single-walled carbon nanotubes have been associated with DNA damage in rats, highlighting the systemic nature of nanomaterial-induced genotoxicity [112]. Significant findings from in vivo studies underscore the potential risks posed by nanomaterials. For instance, a study on the genotoxic effects of gold nanoparticles in mice demonstrated that chronic exposure led to DNA damage in the brain, liver, and spleen, with implications for long-term health risks [113]. Another study found that carbon nanotubes induced DNA damage and inflammation in the lungs of rats, raising concerns about their use in various applications [114]. These studies highlight the importance of thorough in vivo testing to understand the full spectrum of nanomaterial-induced DNA damage and its implications for human health.

    The size and shape of nanomaterials play crucial roles in determining their interactions with biological systems, including the mechanisms of DNA damage. Smaller nanoparticles have a larger surface area-to-volume ratio, which can lead to increased reactivity and greater potential for inducing oxidative stress and DNA damage. For instance, smaller gold nanoparticles have been shown to penetrate cellular membranes more easily, leading to increased intracellular ROS generation and subsequent DNA damage [115]. Similarly, the shape of nanoparticles can influence their cellular uptake and bio-distribution. Rod-shaped nanoparticles, for example, have been found to cause more significant DNA damage compared to spherical ones due to their ability to interact more extensively with cellular components [116].

    Surface modifications on nanoparticles significantly influence their biocompatibility and potential to cause DNA damage. Surface chemistry can affect how nanoparticles interact with cells, including their ability to generate ROS or bind directly to DNA. For example, nanoparticles coated with positively charged groups tend to be more genotoxic because they can more readily interact with the negatively charged DNA backbone [117]. Moreover, the presence of functional groups such as carboxyl or amino groups on the nanoparticle surface can modulate the extent of oxidative stress and DNA damage. Studies have shown that surface-modified quantum dots exhibit different levels of DNA damage depending on their surface coatings, highlighting the importance of surface chemistry in nanoparticle-induced genotoxicity [118].

    The composition of nanomaterials, whether metal-based, carbon-based, or composed of other elements, also plays a critical role in their genotoxic potential. Metal nanoparticles such as silver, gold, and titanium dioxide are known for their ability to generate ROS, leading to oxidative DNA damage [119]. Carbon-based nanomaterials, including carbon nanotubes and fullerenes, have been shown to cause DNA damage through both oxidative stress and physical interactions with cellular structures [120]. The stability of nanomaterials in biological environments is another important factor. Unstable nanoparticles can release toxic ions or degrade into smaller particles, both of which can enhance their genotoxic effects [121].

    To detect DNA damage caused by nanomaterials, several genotoxicity assays are commonly employed, each with specific strengths and applications. The comet assay is widely used to assess DNA strand breaks at the single-cell level. In this assay, cells are embedded in agarose, lysed, and subjected to electrophoresis. DNA fragments migrate out of the cells, which is measured to determine the extent of DNA damage [122]. Another commonly used assay is the micronucleus test, which detects chromosomal damage by identifying micronuclei in the cytoplasm of interphase cells. Micronuclei are formed from acentric chromosomal fragments or whole chromosomes that fail to incorporate into daughter nuclei during cell division, serving as a marker for genotoxic events [123]. The γ-H2AX assay is another important method, detecting the phosphorylation of histone H2AX at the site of DNA DSBs. This is achieved through immunofluorescence, where the presence of γ-H2AX foci indicates the occurrence of DSBs, providing a sensitive measure of genotoxic stress [124].

    The sensitivity and specificity of genotoxicity assays vary, influencing their ability to detect nanomaterial-induced DNA damage. The comet assay is highly sensitive to detecting SSBs and alkali-labile sites. It can also detect DNA cross-links and oxidative base damage when modified with specific enzymes. However, it may not differentiate between different types of DNA damage [125]. In contrast, the micronucleus test is less sensitive than the comet assay for detecting SSBs but is specific for chromosomal damage. It is particularly useful for identifying clastogenic and aneugenic effects and is less labor-intensive, making it suitable for high-throughput screening [126]. The γ-H2AX assay is highly specific for DSBs and provides a quantitative measure of damage. It is more sensitive than the comet assay for detecting DSBs but requires sophisticated equipment and expertise for immunofluorescence imaging and analysis [127].

    Studies employing these assays have provided significant insights into the genotoxic potential of nanomaterials. Comet assay results have shown significant DNA damage induced by nanomaterials. For instance, silver nanoparticles caused considerable DNA strand breaks in human lung fibroblasts, highlighting their genotoxic potential [128]. Similarly, titanium dioxide nanoparticles induced DNA damage in human bronchial epithelial cells [129]. The micronucleus test has demonstrated chromosomal damage induced by carbon nanotubes and fullerenes. One study reported that single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) caused a significant increase in micronucleus formation in human lung cells, indicating clastogenic effects [130]. Additionally, fullerenes induced micronuclei in mouse midbrain cells [131]. The γ-H2AX assay has revealed the formation of DSBs following exposure to various nanomaterials. For example, zinc oxide nanoparticles caused DSBs in human dermal fibroblasts, as evidenced by γ-H2AX staining [132].

    NPRT leverages the unique properties of nanoparticles to improve the effectiveness of radiation therapy. MC simulations have been extensively used to model and predict the dose enhancement effects of nanoparticles in radiotherapy. These simulations provide detailed insights into the interactions between radiation and nanoparticles at the microscopic level, helping to optimize the use of nanoparticles for therapeutic purposes [133].

    MC simulations have shown that the inclusion of high atomic number (Z) nanoparticles, such as gold nanoparticles, can significantly enhance the local radiation dose within tumor tissues. This dose enhancement occurs because high-Z nanoparticles have a higher probability of interacting with ionizing radiation, leading to the emission of secondary electrons (photoelectrons, Auger electrons) that deposit energy locally and cause increased DNA damage in cancer cells [134]. Studies using MC simulations have reported dose enhancement factors ranging from 1.1 to 4.0, depending on the concentration and distribution of nanoparticles, as well as the type and energy of the radiation used [135],[136]. Cho et al. [137],[138] utilized MC simulations to explore the effects of gold nanoparticles in brachytherapy, a form of internal radiotherapy. Their findings showed that AuNPs could significantly increase the dose delivered to the tumor while sparing surrounding healthy tissues, highlighting the precision and effectiveness of nanoparticle-mediated dose enhancement. Figure 4 presents the results of a Monte Carlo simulation where a gold nanoparticle associated with DNA was irradiated by photon beams in the presence of a magnetic field [97]. The simulation revealed that applying a magnetic field (0–2 T) led to only a slight dose enhancement of less than 3%, resulting in an insignificant increase in DNA damage. These findings are particularly relevant for magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy, where patients are irradiated under a magnetic field.

    Figure 4.  The Monte Carlo model geometry simulated in Geant4-DNA (not to scale) places a gold nanoparticle between the photon beam (green) and the DNA molecule. Nanoparticles with diameters of 30, 50, and 100 nm were used in the simulation [97].

    Current research on nanomaterial-induced DNA damage has provided valuable insights but also revealed several gaps that need to be addressed. One significant gap is the limited understanding of the long-term biological effects and potential toxicity of nanoparticles. Most studies have focused on short-term impacts and acute toxicity, leaving the chronic effects and bioaccumulation of nanoparticles underexplored. Moreover, variability in nanoparticle size, shape, surface chemistry, and composition used in different studies complicates the comparison of results and hinders the establishment of standardized protocols for assessing DNA damage.

    Another gap lies in the lack of comprehensive in vivo studies. While in vitro research has shed light on cellular responses to nanomaterials, translating these findings to complex living organisms remains challenging. The interaction of nanoparticles with various biological systems and their potential to induce systemic genotoxic effects are not fully understood. Furthermore, there is a need for more advanced and sensitive genotoxicity assays that can detect subtle and early DNA damage events, providing a more accurate assessment of nanomaterial-induced genotoxicity.

    Future studies should address these gaps through several key research directions. First, long-term in vivo studies are essential to evaluate the chronic effects and potential toxicity of nanoparticles. These studies should investigate the bio-distribution, clearance, and bioaccumulation of nanoparticles, along with their long-term genotoxic impacts. Understanding these aspects is crucial for assessing the safety and risk associated with nanomaterial exposure.

    Second, standardizing nanoparticle properties and experimental protocols is critical for enhancing the reproducibility and comparability of research findings. Researchers should focus on producing nanoparticles with uniform and well-characterized size, shape, surface chemistry, and composition. Establishing clear guidelines for nanoparticle synthesis, characterization, and testing in genotoxicity assays will facilitate consistent and reliable results across different studies.

    Third, integrating advanced imaging and molecular techniques into genotoxicity studies could provide deeper insights into the mechanisms of DNA damage. Techniques such as high-resolution electron microscopy, single-molecule imaging, and next-generation sequencing can reveal the precise interactions between nanoparticles and DNA at the molecular level. Additionally, combining these techniques with traditional genotoxicity assays will offer a more comprehensive understanding of nanomaterial-induced DNA damage.

    Fourth, interdisciplinary collaborations between materials scientists, biologists, toxicologists, and clinicians are essential for advancing research in this field. Such collaborations can foster the development of integrated models that combine physical, chemical, and biological data, improving our understanding of the complex interactions between nanomaterials and biological systems. These models can also aid in the design of safer and more effective nanoparticles for various applications.

    Fifth, to address the variability in quantifying DNA damage caused by different nanomaterials, future studies should focus on developing standardized assays and protocols for assessing DNA damage. Establishing uniform methodologies will enable researchers to obtain comparable and reproducible data, facilitating accurate assessments of the impacts of various nanomaterials on DNA integrity. Comprehensive studies should utilize advanced techniques, such as comet assays and γ-H2AX foci formation, to quantify SSBs, DSBs, and other DNA lesions. By generating robust quantitative data, researchers can better contextualize the biophysical effects of nanomaterials and inform the development of safer nanomedical applications.

    Lastly, exploring the potential of novel nanomaterials and hybrid systems for therapeutic purposes could open new avenues for cancer treatment and other medical applications. Investigating the use of nanoparticles in combination with existing therapies, such as radiation or chemotherapy, may enhance treatment efficacy and reduce side effects. Future research should focus on optimizing nanoparticle formulations and delivery methods to maximize their therapeutic potential while minimizing adverse effects.

    Nanomaterial-induced DNA damage research has revealed crucial biophysical insights into how nanoparticle properties such as size, shape, surface chemistry, and composition influence genetic integrity. In vitro studies highlight that nanomaterials can cause DNA damage through direct interactions, ROS generation, and cellular disruption. Techniques like the comet assay, micronucleus test, and γ-H2AX assay have proven useful in detecting this damage, though their sensitivity and specificity vary. In vivo studies indicate that nanomaterials can induce systemic genotoxic effects, emphasizing the need for long-term safety evaluations.

    MC simulations have shown the potential of nanoparticles to enhance radiotherapy efficacy, stressing the importance of nanoparticle properties in optimizing treatment outcomes. However, experimental validation and clinical studies are needed to translate these theoretical predictions into practice. Future research should focus on conducting long-term in vivo studies, standardizing nanoparticle properties and experimental protocols, and integrating advanced imaging and molecular techniques into genotoxicity assessments. Interdisciplinary collaborations will be key to developing comprehensive models that improve our understanding of nanomaterial interactions with biological systems. Furthermore, exploring novel nanomaterials and hybrid systems for therapeutic purposes could lead to safer and more effective treatments.

    The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.


    Acknowledgments



    There is no financial support for conducting the research and preparing the article.

    Conflict of interest



    James C.L. Chow is an editorial board member for AIMS Biophysics and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. The author has no potential conflict of interest on financial or commercial matters associated with this study.

    [1] Chow JCL (2017) Application of nanoparticle materials in radiation therapy. Handbook of Ecomaterials . Springer 3661-3681. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68255-6_111
    [2] Chow JCL (2020) Recent progress of gold nanomaterials in cancer therapy. Handbook of Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites for Energy and Environmental Applications . Springer 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36268-3_2
    [3] Dippong T (2024) Innovative nanomaterial properties and applications in chemistry, physics, medicine, or environment. Nanomaterials 14: 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano14020145
    [4] Yang Z, Chen H, Yang P, et al. (2022) Nano-oxygenated hydrogels for locally and permeably hypoxia relieving to heal chronic wounds. Biomaterials 282: 121401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2022.121401
    [5] Shi L, Song D, Meng C, et al. (2024) Opportunities and challenges of engineered exosomes for diabetic wound healing. Giant 18: 100251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giant.2024.100251
    [6] Fu W, Sun S, Cheng Y, et al. (2024) Opportunities and challenges of nanomaterials in wound healing: Advances, mechanisms, and perspectives. Chem Eng J 495: 153640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.153640
    [7] Siddique S, Chow JCL (2020) Application of nanomaterials in biomedical imaging and cancer therapy. Nanomaterials 10: 1700. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10091700
    [8] Trucillo P (2024) Biomaterials for drug delivery and human applications. Materials 17: 456. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17020456
    [9] Staffurth J (2010) A review of the clinical evidence for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Clin Oncol 22: 643-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2010.06.013
    [10] Brito CL, Silva JV, Gonzaga RV, et al. (2024) A review on carbon nanotubes family of nanomaterials and their health field. ACS Omega 9: 8687-8708. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c08824
    [11] Hu J, Dong M (2024) Recent advances in two-dimensional nanomaterials for sustainable wearable electronic devices. J Nanobiotechnol 22: 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-023-02274-7
    [12] Rehmanullah MZ, Inayat N, Majeed A (2020) Application of nanoparticles in agriculture as fertilizers and pesticides: challenges and opportunities. New Frontiers in Stress Management for Durable Agriculture : 281-293. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1322-0_17
    [13] Petersen EJ, Nelson BC (2010) Mechanisms and measurements of nanomaterial-induced oxidative damage to DNA. Anal Bioanal Chem 398: 613-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-010-3881-7
    [14] Moore JA, Chow JCL (2021) Recent progress and applications of gold nanotechnology in medical biophysics using artificial intelligence and mathematical modeling. Nano Express 2: 022001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-959X/abddd3
    [15] Barua S, Mitragotri S (2014) Challenges associated with penetration of nanoparticles across cell and tissue barriers: a review of current status and future prospects. Nano Today 9: 223-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2014.04.008
    [16] Yan L, Gu Z, Zhao Y (2013) Chemical mechanisms of the toxicological properties of nanomaterials: generation of intracellular reactive oxygen species. Chem Asian J 8: 2342-2353. https://doi.org/10.1002/asia.201300542
    [17] Ruan C, Su K, Zhao D, et al. (2021) Nanomaterials for tumor hypoxia relief to improve the efficacy of ROS-generated cancer therapy. Front Chem 9: 649158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2021.649158
    [18] Fu PP, Xia Q, Hwang HM, et al. (2014) Mechanisms of nanotoxicity: generation of reactive oxygen species. J Food Drug Anal 22: 64-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2014.01.005
    [19] Chow JCL (2016) Photon and electron interactions with gold nanoparticles: a Monte Carlo study on gold nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy. Nan Med Imag 8: 45-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-41736-5.00002-9
    [20] Chow JCL, Santiago CA (2023) DNA damage of iron-gold nanoparticle heterojunction irradiated by kV photon beams: a Monte Carlo study. Appl Sci 13: 8942. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158942
    [21] Santiago CA, Chow JCL (2023) Variations in gold nanoparticle size on DNA damage: a Monte Carlo study based on a multiple-particle model using electron beams. Appl Sci 13: 4916. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13084916
    [22] Kalyane D, Raval N, Maheshwari R, et al. (2019) Employment of enhanced permeability and retention effect (EPR): nanoparticle-based precision tools for targeting of therapeutic and diagnostic agent in cancer. Mater Sci Eng C 98: 1252-1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.01.066
    [23] Martelli S, Chow JCL (2020) Dose enhancement for the flattening-filter-free and flattening-filter X-ray beams in nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy: a Monte Carlo phantom study. Nanomaterials 10: 637. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10040637
    [24] Chow JCL (2022) Special issue: application of nanomaterials in biomedical imaging and cancer therapy. Nanomaterials 12: 726. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12050726
    [25] Thongkumkoon P, Sangwijit K, Chaiwong C, et al. (2014) Direct nanomaterial-DNA contact effects on DNA and mutation induction. Toxicol Lett 226: 90-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2014.01.036
    [26] Bhabra G, Sood A, Fisher B, et al. (2009) Nanoparticles can cause DNA damage across a cellular barrier. Nat Nanotechnol 4: 876-883. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.313
    [27] Wan R., Mo Y, Feng L, et al. (2012) DNA damage caused by metal nanoparticles: involvement of oxidative stress and activation of ATM. Chem Res Toxicol 25: 1402-1411. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx200513t
    [28] Zijno A, De Angelis I, De Berardis B, et al. (2015) Different mechanisms are involved in oxidative DNA damage and genotoxicity induction by ZnO and TiO2 nanoparticles in human colon carcinoma cells. Toxicol Vitrp 29: 1503-1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2015.06.009
    [29] Hahm JY, Park J, Jang ES, et al. (2022) 8-Oxoguanine: from oxidative damage to epigenetic and epitranscriptional modification. Exp Mol Med 54: 1626-1642. https://doi.org/10.1038/s12276-022-00822-z
    [30] Letavayová L, Marková E, Hermanská K, et al. (2006) Relative contribution of homologous recombination and non-homologous end-joining to DNA double-strand break repair after oxidative stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. DNA Repair 5: 602-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2006.01.004
    [31] Cadet J, Douki T, Gasparutto D, et al. (2003) Oxidative damage to DNA: formation, measurement, and biochemical features. Mutat Res/Fund Mol M 531: 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2003.09.001
    [32] Encinas-Gimenez M, Martin-Duque P, Martín-Pardillos A (2024) Cellular alterations due to direct and indirect interaction of nanomaterials with nucleic acids. Int J Mol Sci 25: 1983. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25041983
    [33] Li X, Liu W, Sun L, et al. (2015) Effects of physicochemical properties of nanomaterials on their toxicity. J Biomed Mater Res A 103: 2499-2507. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.35384
    [34] Li Y, Lian Y, Zhang LT, et al. (2016) Cell and nanoparticle transport in tumour microvasculature: the role of size, shape and surface functionality of nanoparticles. Interface Focus 6: 20150086. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2015.0086
    [35] Schaeublin NM, Braydich-Stolle LK, Schrand AM, et al. (2011) Surface charge of gold nanoparticles mediates mechanism of toxicity. Nanoscale 3: 410-420. https://doi.org/10.1039/C0NR00478B
    [36] Siddique S, Chow JCL (2022) Recent advances in functionalized nanoparticles in cancer theranostics. Nanomaterials 12: 2826. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12162826
    [37] Singh N, Manshian B, Jenkins GJ, et al. (2009) NanoGenotoxicology: the DNA damaging potential of engineered nanomaterials. Biomaterials 30: 3891-3914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.04.009
    [38] Landsiedel R, Honarvar N, Seiffert SB, et al. (2022) Genotoxicity testing of nanomaterials. WIRES: Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 14: e1833. https://doi.org/10.1002/wnan.1833
    [39] Møller P, Roursgaard M (2024) Gastrointestinal tract exposure to particles and DNA damage in animals: a review of studies before, during, and after the peak of nanotoxicology. Mut Res/Rev Mutat Res 793: 108491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2024.108491
    [40] Chow JCL (2021) Synthesis and applications of functionalized nanoparticles in biomedicine and radiotherapy. Additive Manufacturing with Functionalized Nanomaterials . Elsevier 193-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823152-4.00001-6
    [41] Chompoosor A, Saha K, Ghosh PS, et al. (2010) The role of surface functionality on acute cytotoxicity, ROS generation and DNA damage by cationic gold nanoparticles. Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) 6: 2246. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201000463
    [42] Carlson C, Hussain SM, Schrand AM, et al. (2008) Unique cellular interaction of silver nanoparticles: size-dependent generation of reactive oxygen species. J Phys Chem B 112: 13608-13619. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp712087m
    [43] Song MF, Li YS, Kasai H, et al. (2012) Metal nanoparticle-induced micronuclei and oxidative DNA damage in mice. J Clin Biochem Nutr 50: 211-216. https://doi.org/10.3164/jcbn.11-70
    [44] Sotiropoulos M, Henthorn NT, Warmenhoven JW, et al. (2017) Modelling direct DNA damage for gold nanoparticle enhanced proton therapy. Nanoscale 9: 18413-18422. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7NR07310K
    [45] Madannejad R, Shoaie N, Jahanpeyma F, et al. (2019) Toxicity of carbon-based nanomaterials: reviewing recent reports in medical and biological systems. Chem-Biol Interact 307: 206-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2019.04.036
    [46] Heredia DA, Durantini AM, Durantini JE, et al. (2022) Fullerene C60 derivatives as antimicrobial photodynamic agents. J Photochem Photobiol Photochem Rev 51: 100471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochemrev.2021.100471
    [47] Migliore L, Saracino D, Bonelli A, et al. (2010) Carbon nanotubes induce oxidative DNA damage in RAW 264.7 cells. Environ Mol Mutagen 51: 294-303. https://doi.org/10.1002/em.20545
    [48] Oh WK, Kwon OS, Jang J (2013) Conducting polymer nanomaterials for biomedical applications: cellular interfacing and biosensing. Polym Rev 53: 407-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583724.2013.805771
    [49] Kulkarni AA, Rao PS (2013) Synthesis of polymeric nanomaterials for biomedical applications. Nanomaterials in Tissue Engineering . Woodhead Publishing 27-63. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857097231.1.27
    [50] Li J, Pu K (2020) Semiconducting polymer nanomaterials as near-infrared photoactivatable protherapeutics for cancer. Acc Chem Res 53: 752-762. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.9b00569
    [51] Balasubramanian SB, Gurumurthy B, Balasubramanian A (2017) Biomedical applications of ceramic nanomaterials: a review. Int J Pharm Sci Res 8: 4950-4959. https://doi.org/10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.8(12).4950-59
    [52] Jafari S, Mahyad B, Hashemzadeh H, et al. (2020) Biomedical applications of TiO2 nanostructures: recent advances. Int J Nanomed 15: 3447-3470. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S249441
    [53] Huang Y, Li P, Zhao R, et al. (2022) Silica nanoparticles: biomedical applications and toxicity. Biomed Pharmacother 151: 113053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113053
    [54] Chen L, Liu J, Zhang Y, et al. (2018) The toxicity of silica nanoparticles to the immune system. Nanomedicine 13: 1939-1962. https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm-2018-0076
    [55] Dolai J, Mandal K, Jana NR (2021) Nanoparticle size effects in biomedical applications. ACS Appl Nano Mater 4: 6471-6496. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.1c00987
    [56] Albanese A, Tang PS, Chan WC (2012) The effect of nanoparticle size, shape, and surface chemistry on biological systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 14: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150124
    [57] Yang H, Liu C, Yang D, et al. (2009) Comparative study of cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, and genotoxicity induced by four typical nanomaterials: the role of particle size, shape, and composition. J Appl Toxicol 29: 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.1385
    [58] Khaing Oo MK, Yang Y, Hu Y, et al. (2012) Gold nanoparticle-enhanced and size-dependent generation of reactive oxygen species from protoporphyrin IX. ACS Nano 6: 1939-1947. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn300327c
    [59] Kang Z, Yan X, Zhao L, et al. (2015) Gold nanoparticle/ZnO nanorod hybrids for enhanced reactive oxygen species generation and photodynamic therapy. Nano Res 8: 2004-2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-015-0712-3
    [60] Subbiah R, Veerapandian M, Yun KS (2010) Nanoparticles: Functionalization and multifunctional applications in biomedical sciences. Curr Med Chem 17: 4559-4577. https://doi.org/10.2174/092986710794183024
    [61] Fröhlich E (2012) The role of surface charge in cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of medical nanoparticles. Int J Nanomed 7: 5577-5591. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S36111
    [62] Siddique S, Chow JCL (2020) Gold nanoparticles for drug delivery and cancer therapy. Appl Sci 10: 3824. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10113824
    [63] Suk JS, Xu Q, Kim N, et al. (2016) PEGylation as a strategy for improving nanoparticle-based drug and gene delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 99: 28-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2015.09.012
    [64] Shi M, Kwon HS, Peng Z, et al. (2012) Effects of surface chemistry on the generation of reactive oxygen species by copper nanoparticles. ACS Nano 6: 2157-2164. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn300445d
    [65] Čapek J, Roušar T (2021) Detection of oxidative stress induced by nanomaterials in cells—the roles of reactive oxygen species and glutathione. Molecules 26: 4710. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26164710
    [66] Magdolenova Z, Bilaničová D, Pojana G, et al. (2012) Impact of agglomeration and different dispersions of titanium dioxide nanoparticles on the human related in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity. J Environ Monitor 14: 455-464. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2EM10746E
    [67] Behzadi S, Serpooshan V, Tao W, et al. (2017) Cellular uptake of nanoparticles: journey inside the cell. Chem Soc Rev 46: 4218-4244. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6CS00636A
    [68] Soto K, Garza KM, Murr LE (2007) Cytotoxic effects of aggregated nanomaterials. Acta Biomater 3: 351-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2006.11.004
    [69] Liu Y, Zhu S, Gu Z, et al. (2022) Toxicity of manufactured nanomaterials. Particuology 69: 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2021.11.007
    [70] Walkey CD, Chan WC (2012) Understanding and controlling the interaction of nanomaterials with proteins in a physiological environment. Chem Soc Rev 41: 2780-2799. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1CS15233E
    [71] Lee YK, Choi EJ, Webster TJ, et al. (2015) Effect of the protein corona on nanoparticles for modulating cytotoxicity and immunotoxicity. Int J Nanomed 10: 97-113. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S72998
    [72] Bushell M, Beauchemin S, Kunc F, et al. (2020) Characterization of commercial metal oxide nanomaterials: Crystalline phase, particle size, and specific surface area. Nanomaterials 10: 1812. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10091812
    [73] Mahaye N, Thwala M, Cowan DA, et al. (2017) Genotoxicity of metal-based engineered nanoparticles in aquatic organisms: a review. Mut Res/Rev Mut Res 773: 134-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2017.05.004
    [74] Zijno A, De Angelis I, De Berardis B, et al. (2015) Different mechanisms are involved in oxidative DNA damage and genotoxicity induction by ZnO and TiO2 nanoparticles in human colon carcinoma cells. Toxicol Vitro 29: 1503-1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2015.06.009
    [75] Racovita AD (2022) Titanium dioxide: structure, impact, and toxicity. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19: 5681. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095681
    [76] Sukhanova A, Bozrova S, Sokolov P, et al. (2018) Dependence of nanoparticle toxicity on their physical and chemical properties. Nanoscale Res Lett 13: 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-018-2457-x
    [77] Thu HE, Haider MA, Khan S, et al. (2023) Nanotoxicity induced by nanomaterials: a review of factors affecting nanotoxicity and possible adaptations. OpenNano 14: 100190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onano.2023.100190
    [78] Sirajuddin M, Ali S, Badshah A (2013) Drug–DNA interactions and their study by UV–Visible, fluorescence spectroscopies, and cyclic voltammetry. J Photoch Photobio B 124: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2013.03.013
    [79] Wamsley M, Zou S, Zhang D (2023) Advancing evidence-based data interpretation in UV–Vis and fluorescence analysis for nanomaterials: an analytical chemistry perspective. Anal Chem 95: 17426-17437. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.3c03490
    [80] Suh JS, Kim TJ (2023) A novel DNA double-strand breaks biosensor based on fluorescence resonance energy transfer. Biomater Res 27: 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-023-00354-1
    [81] Kolyvanova MA, Klimovich MA, Belousov AV, et al. (2022) A principal approach to the detection of radiation-induced DNA damage by circular dichroism spectroscopy and its dosimetric application. Photonics 9: 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics9110787
    [82] Xu X, Nakano T, Tsuda M, et al. (2020) Direct observation of damage clustering in irradiated DNA with atomic force microscopy. Nucleic Acids Res 48: e18. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz1159
    [83] Rübe CE, Lorat Y, Schuler N, et al. (2011) DNA repair in the context of chromatin: new molecular insights by the nanoscale detection of DNA repair complexes using transmission electron microscopy. DNA Repair 10: 427-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2011.01.012
    [84] Scalisi S, Privitera AP, Pelicci PG, et al. (2024) Origin and evolution of oncogene-related DNA damage: a confocal imaging study. Biophys J 123: 290a-291a. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2023.11.1811
    [85] Darwanto A, Farrel A, Rogstad DK, et al. (2009) Characterization of DNA glycosylase activity by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Anal Biochem 394: 13-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2009.07.015
    [86] Chaudhary AK, Nokubo M, Oglesby TD, et al. (1995) Characterization of endogenous DNA adducts by liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. J Mass Spectrom 30: 1157-1166. https://doi.org/10.1002/jms.1190300813
    [87] Kaneko S, Takamatsu K (2024) Angle modulated two-dimensional single cell pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for detecting early symptoms of DNA fragmentation in human sperm nuclei. Sci Rep 14: 840. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51509-6
    [88] Plitta-Michalak BP, Ramos A, Stępień D, et al. (2024) Pespective: the comet assay as a method for assessing DNA damage in cryopreserved samples. CryoLetters 45: 1-5. https://doi.org/10.54680/fr24110110112
    [89] Chatha AMM, Naz S, Iqbal SS, et al. (2024) Detection of DNA damage in fish using comet assay. Curr Trends in OMICS 4: 01-16. https://doi.org/10.32350/cto.41.01
    [90] Li H, Xu Y, Shi W, et al. (2017) Assessment of alterations in X-ray irradiation-induced DNA damage of glioma cells by using proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 84: 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2017.01.010
    [91] Campagne S, Gervais V, Milon A (2011) Nuclear magnetic resonance analysis of protein–DNA interactions. J R Soc Interface 8: 1065-1078. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2010.0543
    [92] Abolfath RM, Carlson DJ, Chen ZJ, et al. (2013) A molecular dynamics simulation of DNA damage induction by ionizing radiation. Phys Med Biol 58: 7143. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/58/20/7143
    [93] Yang S, Zhao T, Zou L, et al. (2019) ReaxFF-based molecular dynamics simulation of DNA molecules destruction in cancer cells by plasma ROS. Phys Plasmas 26: 083504. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5097243
    [94] Sheeraz Z, Chow JCL (2021) Evaluation of dose enhancement with gold nanoparticles in kilovoltage radiotherapy using the new EGS geometry library in Monte Carlo simulation. AIMS Biophys 8: 337-345. https://doi.org/10.3934/biophy.2021027
    [95] Leung MK, Chow JC, Chithrani BD, et al. (2011) Irradiation of gold nanoparticles by x-rays: Monte Carlo simulation of dose enhancements and the spatial properties of the secondary electrons production. Med Phys 38: 624-631. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3539623
    [96] Chow JCL (2018) Monte Carlo nanodosimetry in gold nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy. Recent Advancements and Applications in Dosimetry . New York: Nova Science Publishers.
    [97] Jabeen M, Chow JCL (2021) Gold nanoparticle DNA damage by photon beam in a magnetic field: a Monte Carlo study. Nanomaterials 11: 1751. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11071751
    [98] Chun H, Chow JCL (2016) Gold nanoparticle DNA damage in radiotherapy: a Monte Carlo study. AIMS Bioeng 3: 352-361. https://doi.org/10.3934/bioeng.2016.3.352
    [99] Horvath T, Papp A, Igaz N, et al. (2018) Pulmonary impact of titanium dioxide nanorods: examination of nanorod-exposed rat lungs and human alveolar cells. Int J Nanomed 13: 7061-7077. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S179159
    [100] AshaRani PV, Low Kah Mun G, Hande MP, et al. (2009) Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in human cells. ACS Nano 3: 279-290. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn800596w
    [101] Karlsson HL, Cronholm P, Gustafsson J, et al. (2008) Copper oxide nanoparticles are highly toxic: a comparison between metal oxide nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes. Chem Res Toxicol 21: 1726-1732. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx800064j
    [102] Singh N, Manshian B, Jenkins GJ, et al. (2009) NanoGenotoxicology: the DNA damaging potential of engineered nanomaterials. Biomaterials 30: 3891-3914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.04.009
    [103] Magdolenova Z, Collins A, Kumar A, et al. (2014) Mechanisms of genotoxicity: a review of in vitro and in vivo studies with engineered nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology 8: 233-278. https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2013.773464
    [104] Gonzalez L, Lison D, Kirsch-Volders M (2008) Genotoxicity of engineered nanomaterials: a critical review. Nanotoxicology 2: 252-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390802464986
    [105] Ahamed M, Karns M, Goodson M, et al. (2008) DNA damage response to different surface chemistry of silver nanoparticles in mammalian cells. Toxicol Appl Pharm 233: 404-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2008.09.015
    [106] Shukla RK, Sharma V, Pandey AK, et al. (2011) ROS-mediated genotoxicity induced by titanium dioxide nanoparticles in human epidermal cells. Toxicol in Vitro 25: 231-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2010.11.008
    [107] Sharma V, Singh P, Pandey AK, et al. (2012) Induction of oxidative stress and DNA damage by zinc oxide nanoparticles in human liver cells (HepG2). J Biomed Nanotechnol 8: 63-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2011.12.009
    [108] Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Persp 113: 823-839. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7339
    [109] Park EJ, Yi J, Kim Y, et al. (2010) Silver nanoparticles induce cytotoxicity by a Trojan-horse type mechanism. Toxicol Vitro 24: 872-878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2009.12.001
    [110] Chen Z, Meng H, Xing G, et al. (2006) Acute toxicological effects of copper nanoparticles in vivo. Toxicol Lett 163: 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2005.10.003
    [111] Trouiller B, Reliene R, Westbrook A, et al. (2009) Titanium dioxide nanoparticles induce DNA damage and genetic instability in vivo in mice. Cancer Res 69: 8784-8789. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-2496
    [112] Folkmann JK, Risom L, Jacobsen NR, et al. (2009) Oxidatively damaged DNA in rats exposed by oral gavage to C60 fullerenes and single-walled carbon nanotubes. Environ Health Persp 117: 703-708. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11922
    [113] Bahamonde J, Brenseke B, Prater MR, et al. (2018) Gold nanoparticles toxicity in mice and rats: species differences. Toxicol Pathol 46: 431-443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623318770608
    [114] Lam CW, James JT, McCluskey R, et al. (2004) Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicol Sci 77: 26-134. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfg243
    [115] Pan Y, Neuss S, Leifert A, et al. (2007) Size-dependent cytotoxicity of gold nanoparticles. Small 3: 1941-1949. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.200700378
    [116] Jiang W, Kim BY, Rutka JT, et al. (2008) Nanoparticle-mediated cellular response is size-dependent. Nat Nanotechnol 3: 145-150. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.30
    [117] Zhang XD, Wu D, Shen X, et al. (2012) Size-dependent in vivo toxicity of PEG-coated gold nanoparticles. Int J Nanomed 6: 2071-2081. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S21657
    [118] Derfus AM, Chan WC, Bhatia SN (2004) Probing the cytotoxicity of semiconductor quantum dots. Nano Lett 4: 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1021/nl0347334
    [119] Ahamed M, Siddiqui MK, Akhtar MJ, et al. (2010) Genotoxic potential of copper oxide nanoparticles in human lung epithelial cells. Biochem Bioph Res Co 396: 578-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.04.156
    [120] Kang S, Pinault M, Pfefferle LD, et al. (2008) Single-walled carbon nanotubes exhibit strong antimicrobial activity. Langmuir 24: 6409-6413. https://doi.org/10.1021/la701067r
    [121] Limbach LK, Wick P, Manser P, et al. (2007) Exposure of engineered nanoparticles to human lung epithelial cells: Influence of chemical composition and catalytic activity on oxidative stress. Environ Sci Technol 41: 4158-4163. https://doi.org/10.1021/es062629t
    [122] Collins AR (2004) The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: principles, applications, and limitations. Mol Biotechnol 26: 249-261. https://doi.org/10.1385/MB:26:3:249
    [123] Fenech M (2000) The in vitro micronucleus technique. Mutat Res/Fund Mol M 455: 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0027-5107(00)00065-8
    [124] Rogakou EP, Pilch DR, Orr AH, et al. (1998) DNA double-stranded breaks induce histone H2AX phosphorylation on serine 139. J Biol Chem 273: 5858-5868. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.273.10.5858
    [125] Olive PL, Banáth JP (2006) The comet assay: a method to measure DNA damage in individual cells. Nat Protoc 1: 23-29. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2006.5
    [126] Kirsch-Volders M, Sofuni T, Aardema M, et al. (2011) Report from the in vitro micronucleus assay working group. Mut Res/Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 540: 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2003.07.005
    [127] Mah LJ, El-Osta A, Karagiannis TC (2010) γH2AX: a sensitive molecular marker of DNA damage and repair. Leukemia 24: 679-686. https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2010.6
    [128] AshaRani PV, Low Kah Mun G, Hande MP, et al. (2009) Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles. ACS Nano 3: 279-290. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn800596w
    [129] Gurr JR, Wang AS, Chen CH, et al. (2005) Ultrafine titanium dioxide particles in the absence of photoactivation can induce oxidative damage to human bronchial epithelial cells. Toxicology 213: 66-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2005.05.007
    [130] Migliore L, Saracino S, Bonfiglioli R, et al. (2010) Carbon nanotubes induce oxidative DNA damage in RAW264.7 cells. Environ Mol Mutagen 51: 294-303. https://doi.org/10.1002/em.20545
    [131] Tsuchiya T, Oguri I, Yamakoshi YN, et al. (1996) Novel harmful effects of [60] fullerene on mouse embryos in vitro and in vivo. EBS Lett 393: 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-5793(96)00812-5
    [132] Gupta SK, Sundarraj K, Devashya N, et al. (2013) ZnO nanoparticles induce apoptosis in human dermal fibroblasts via p53-p21 mediated ROS generation and mitochondrial oxidative stress. Biotechnol Bioeng 110: 3113-3122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2011.08.011
    [133] Chow JCL (2018) Recent progress in Monte Carlo simulation on gold nanoparticle radiosensitization. AIMS Biophys 5: 231-244. https://doi.org/10.3934/biophy.2018.4.231
    [134] Chithrani DB, Jelveh S, Jalali F, et al. (2010) Gold nanoparticles as radiation sensitizers in cancer therapy. Radiat Res 173: 719-728. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR1984.1
    [135] Zheng XJ, Chow JCL (2017) Radiation dose enhancement in skin therapy with nanoparticle addition: a Monte Carlo study on kilovoltage photon and megavoltage electron beams. World J Radiol 9: 63-71. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v9.i2.63
    [136] Chow JCL (2020) Depth dose enhancement on flattening-filter-free photon beam: a Monte Carlo study in nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy. Appl Sci 10: 7052. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207052
    [137] Cho SH, Jones BL, Krishnan S (2005) The dosimetric feasibility of gold nanoparticle-aided radiation therapy (GNRT) via brachytherapy using low-energy gamma-/X-ray sources. Phys Med Biol 50: N163-N173. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/16/004
    [138] Cho S, Jeong JH, Kim CH, et al. (2010) Monte Carlo simulation study on dose enhancement by gold nanoparticles in brachytherapy. J Korean Phys Soc 56: 1754-1758. https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.56.1754
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Francesco Fiorica, Umberto Tebano, Giuseppe Napoli, Antonella Franceschetto, Marco Muraro, Carlotta Giorgi, Paolo Pinton, Metabolic-Modulating Effects of Radiation: Undetectable Yet Deadly—A Review on Radiotherapy, 2024, 17, 2072-6694, 54, 10.3390/cancers17010054
    2. James C. L. Chow, Monte Carlo Simulations in Nanomedicine: Advancing Cancer Imaging and Therapy, 2025, 15, 2079-4991, 117, 10.3390/nano15020117
    3. Andrea Méndez-García, Luis Alberto Bravo-Vázquez, Padmavati Sahare, Sujay Paul, Impact of UV-Irradiated Mesoporous Titania Nanoparticles (mTiNPs) on Key Onco- and Tumor Suppressor microRNAs of PC3 Prostate Cancer Cells, 2025, 16, 2073-4425, 148, 10.3390/genes16020148
    4. A. Taheri, M.U. Khandaker, H. Rabus, F. Moradi, D.A. Bradley, The influence of atomic number on the radiosensitization efficiency of metallic nanorods: A Monte Carlo simulation study, 2025, 230, 0969806X, 112589, 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.112589
    5. Christopher C. Perry, Reinhard W. Schulte, Ryan N. Fuller, Nathan R. Wall, Kevin E. Nick, Magdalena Wegrzyn, Jamie R. Milligan, Integrating gold nanostars into condensed DNA, 2025, 03044165, 130793, 10.1016/j.bbagen.2025.130793
    6. Ibrahim Y. Abdelrahman, Omayma M. Meabed, Ali Shamaa, Hala H. Hazzaa, Moustafa A. Soula, Ibrahim G. Abdelrhman, Amr M. Shaarawi, Alzahraa M. H. Meabed, Maha Abdelsalam, Asmaa M. Abdeen, Saher S. Mohammed, Gharieb S. El-Sayyad, Effectiveness of Chitosan Nanoparticles as a Radioprotective Agent Against Gamma-Induced Changes in the Histology and Biochemistry of Parotid Glands, 2025, 15, 2191-1630, 10.1007/s12668-025-01903-9
    7. Taheri A., Khandaker M. U., Rabus H., Moradi F., Bradley D. A., The role of coating layers in gold nanorods' radioenhancement: a Monte Carlo analysis, 2025, 2516-0230, 10.1039/D5NA00220F
    8. Yuming Qin, Kai Yue, Xiaoling Yu, Yu You, Chao Yang, Xinxin Zhang, Simulation of the Diffusion Characteristics of Multifunctional Nanocarriers in Tumor Tissues Using Lattice Gas Automata and the Lattice Boltzmann Method, 2025, 12, 2306-5354, 429, 10.3390/bioengineering12040429
    9. Jihang Yu, Md Gulam Musawwir Khan, Nada Mayassi, Bhuvnesh Kaushal, Yi Wang, Single-Cell Sequencing: An Emerging Tool for Biomarker Development in Nuclear Emergencies and Radiation Oncology, 2025, 17, 2072-6694, 1801, 10.3390/cancers17111801
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1354) PDF downloads(63) Cited by(9)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)  /  Tables(1)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog