Nanoparticle Toxicity Biomarker Gene Expression Analysis

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

There is a lack of standardized methods for evaluating the safety of nanomaterials, particularly in terms of toxicity, due to the increased reactivity and penetration of nanoparticles into biological tissues, which poses risks to human health.

Innovation Solution

A biomarker composition comprising specific genes and a microarray chip for diagnosing nanoparticle toxicity by analyzing gene expression changes in exposed tissues, along with additional markers such as ROS content, ATP levels, and mitochondrial damage, to assess nanoparticle-induced toxicity.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If nanoparticles are used in various applications, then the benefits and advantages of nanotechnology are achieved, but the toxicity and safety risks increase due to increased reactivity and penetration into biological tissues

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveapplication rangeVSAvoidtoxicity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by establishing a standardized biomarker panel and evaluation methodology before nanoparticle exposure occurs. The system pre-identifies specific genes (ALDH1A1, ALDH1A2, ALDH18A1, GPT2, GLUD1, GOT2) and metabolites that will serve as early indicators of toxicity, enabling proactive safety assessment rather than reactive response after damage occurs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent uses biomarkers (genes and metabolites) as intermediaries to detect and measure nanoparticle toxicity. These biomarkers serve as mediator molecules that translate the complex biological effects of nanoparticle exposure into measurable signals, allowing indirect but accurate assessment of toxicity without requiring direct observation of cellular damage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Reliability

If conventional toxicity evaluation methods are used, then some safety assessment is performed, but standardized methods and clear biological markers for evaluating nanoparticle safety are not yet established

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesafety assessment capabilityVSAvoidmethodology standardization
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the complexity of toxicity evaluation into distinct, manageable components: a specific panel of 6 genes (ALDH1A1, ALDH1A2, ALDH18A1, GPT2, GLUD1, GOT2) and corresponding metabolites. This segmentation transforms the overwhelming complexity of whole-genome analysis into a focused, standardized assay that can be systematically implemented across different laboratories and applications.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent changes the evaluation parameters from general cellular viability assays to specific gene expression levels and metabolite concentrations. By defining precise measurement parameters (expression levels of specific genes, concentrations of specific metabolites), the patent creates standardized, quantifiable metrics that enable consistent toxicity assessment across different nanoparticle types and exposure conditions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Measurement precision

If gene expression analysis is performed to evaluate nanoparticle toxicity, then sensitivity in detecting toxicity is improved, but the complexity of analysis and lack of standardized markers increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetoxicity detection sensitivityVSAvoidanalysis complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDifficulty of detecting and measuring

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by pre-selecting and validating a specific panel of genes known to be responsive to nanoparticle toxicity. This preliminary identification and validation of target genes (ALDH1A1, ALDH1A2, ALDH18A1, GPT2, GLUD1, GOT2) eliminates the need for exploratory genome-wide screening during actual toxicity testing, thereby reducing analysis complexity while maintaining high detection sensitivity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS9689019B2Biomarker for diagnosing toxicity of nanoparticles and method for evaluating toxicity of nanoparticles using the same
Publication Date: 2017.06.27 AJOU UNIV IND ACADEMIC COOP FOUND
  • US9689019B2 patent drawing
  • US9689019B2 patent drawing
  • US9689019B2 patent drawing

AI summary

Disclosed is a biomarker composition for diagnosing the toxicity of nanoparticles, which shows a change in expression by exposure to the nanoparticles, the biomarker composition comprising at least one gene selected from the group consisting of aldehyde dehydrogenase, glutamic-pyruvate transaminase, glutamate dehydrogenase, glutamicoxaloacetic transaminase, glutamic acid decarboxylase and glutamate-ammonia ligase, and to a method for evaluating the toxicity of nanoparticles using the same. The biomarker is a gene marker having a high correlation with the toxicity of nanoparticles, and the use of the biomarker can determine whether nanoparticles have toxicity, with high detection sensitivity. Also, the method is useful in monitoring or evaluating the toxicity of nanoparticles by analyzing factors having a high correlation with toxicity of nanoparticles. Furthermore, the method can be effectively used as a tool for studying various diseases caused by exposure to nanoparticles or evaluating the effects of nanoparticles on health.