Background: Exposure to mineral fibers is of substantial relevance to human health. A key event in exposure is the interaction with inflammatory cells and the subsequent generation of pro-inflammatory factors. Mast cells (MCs) have been shown to interact with titanium oxide (TiO₂) and asbestos fibers. In this study, we compared the response of rat peritoneal MCs challenged with the asbestos crocidolite and nanowires of TiO₂ to that induced by wollastonite employed as a control fiber. Methods: Rat peritoneal MCs (RPMCs), isolated from peritoneal lavage, were incubated in the presence of mineral fibers. The quantities of secreted enzymes were evaluated together with the activity of fiber-associated enzymes. The ultrastructural morphology of fiber-interacting RPMCs was analyzed with electron microscopy. Results: Asbestos and TiO₂ stimulate MC secretion. Secreted enzymes bind to fibers and exhibit higher activity. TiO₂ and wollastonite bind and improve enzyme activity, but to a lesser degree than crocidolite. Conclusions: (1) Mineral fibers are able to stimulate the mast cell secretory process by both active (during membrane interaction) and/or passive (during membrane penetration) interaction; (2) fibers can be found to be associated with secreted enzymes—this process appears to create long-lasting pro-inflammatory environments and may represent the active contribution of MCs in maintaining the inflammatory process; (3) MCs and their enzymes should be considered as a therapeutic target in the pathogenesis of asbestos-induced lung inflammation; and (4) MCs can contribute to the inflammatory effect associated with selected engineered nanomaterials, such as TiO₂ nanoparticles.

The mode of interaction of asbestos fibres with cell membranes is still debatable. One reason is the lack of a suitable and convenient cellular model to investigate the causes of asbestos toxicity. We studied the interaction of asbestos fibres with Xenopus laevis oocytes, using electrophysiological and morphological methods. Oocytes are large single cells, with a limited ability to endocytose molecular ligands; we therefore considered these cells to be a good model for investigating the nature of asbestos/membrane interactions. Electrophysiological recordings were performed to compare the passive electrical membrane properties, and those induced by applying positive or negative voltage steps, in untreated oocytes and those exposed to asbestos fibre suspensions. Ultrastructural analysis visualized in detail, any morphological changes of the surface membrane caused by the fibre treatment. Our results demonstrate that Amosite and Crocidolite-type asbestos fibres significantly modify the properties of the membrane, starting soon after exposure. Cells were routinely depolarized, their input resistance decreased, and the slow outward currents evoked by step depolarizations were dramatically enhanced. Reducing the availability of surface iron contained in the structure of the fibres with cation chelators, abolished these effects. Ultrastructural analysis of the fibre-exposed oocytes showed no evidence of phagocytic events. Our results demonstrate that asbestos fibres modify the oocyte membrane, and we propose that these cells represent a viable model for studying the asbestos/cell membrane interaction. Our findings also open the possibly for finding specific competitors capable of hindering the asbestos-cell membrane interaction as a means of tackling the long-standing asbestos toxicity problem.

The so-called amphibole asbestos fibers are enriched with mineral iron ions, able to stimulate ROS production. We recently reported that crocidolite asbestos was able to interact with the cell membranes of Xenopus laevis oocytes, to alter their electrical membrane properties. Here, we found that applied iron ions (Fe³⁺) or H₂O₂ (for ROS generation) mimicked these effects, suggesting that at least one effect of iron-containing asbestos fiber exposure was mediated by ROS production. Furthermore, combined Fe³⁺ and H₂O₂ acted synergistically, producing a membrane effect stronger than that induced by these factors alone. Similar to crocidolite, these changes peaked within 30 minutes of incubation and vanished almost completely after 120 min. However, in the presence of cytochalasin D, which inhibits membrane actin repair mechanisms, crocidolite or applied Fe³⁺/H₂O₂ invariably produced oocyte cell death. While the electrophysiological modifications induced by crocidolite suggested a modification of an intrinsic chloride ion channel, the morphological appearance of the treated oocytes also indicated the formation of membrane “pores”; the effects of asbestos exposure may therefore consist of multiple (not necessarily exclusive) underlying mechanisms. In conclusion, using Xenopus oocytes allowed us for the first time, to focus on a specific membrane effect of crocidolite asbestos exposure, which deserves to be tested also on human lung cell lines. Much available evidence suggests that asbestos fibers damage cells through the production of ROS. Our present data confirm that crocidolite fibers can indeed trigger ROS-mediated damaging effects in the oocyte cell membrane, provided iron ions and H₂O₂ are available for ROS production.

Asbestos fibers interact with many different proteins and may affect either their structure or functions. The aim of this study was to determine whether ferritin absorbed onto fibers might modify its ferroxidase activity. By measuring apo-ferritin ferroxidase activity, data demonstrated that ferritin in the presence of fibers did not significantly modify this enzymatic activity. However, fibers in the absence of ferritin promoted ferrous iron oxidation. Evidence suggests that asbestos fibers may promote iron oxidation and subsequently affect cellular iron homeostatic mechanisms.