4.7 Article

Reproductive toxicity and gender differences induced by cadmium telluride quantum dots in an invertebrate model organism

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep34182

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSF of China [31472149]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2013CB934400, 2012CB932400]
  3. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)
  4. Provincial Key R & D Program of Jiangsu [BE2015317]
  5. Project for Jiangsu Scientific and Technological Innovation Team

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sexual glands are key sites affected by nanotoxicity, but there is no sensitive assay for measuring reproductive toxicity in animals. The aim of this study was to investigate the toxic effects of cadmium telluride quantum dots (CdTe-QDs) on gonads in a model organism, Bombyx mori. After dorsal vein injection of 0.32 nmol of CdTe-QDs per individual, the QDs passed through the outer membranes of gonads via the generation of ROS in the membranes of spermatocysts and ovarioles, as well as internal germ cells, thereby inducing early germ cell death or malformations via complex mechanisms related to apoptosis and autophagy through mitochondrial and lysosomal pathways. Histological observations of the gonads and quantitative analyses of germ cell development showed that the reproductive toxicity was characterized by obvious male sensitivity. Exposure to QDs in the early stage of males had severe adverse effects on the quantity and quality of sperm, which was the main reason for the occurrence of unfertilized eggs. Ala- or Gly-conjugated QDs could reduce the nanotoxicity of CdTe-QDs during germ cell development and fertilization of their offspring. The results demonstrate that males are preferable models for evaluating the reproductive toxicity of QDs in combined in vivo/in vitro investigations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available