4.8 Article

An ancestral molecular response to nanomaterial particulates

Journal

NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 8, Pages 957-+

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41565-023-01393-4

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By performing a meta-analysis of various engineered nanoparticle exposure studies, the authors identify common patterns of gene regulation that impact the transcriptomic response. Deregulation of immune functions is observed as a prominent response, with binding sites for zinc finger transcription factors C2H2 identified in the promoter regions of these genes. These findings suggest that the innate immune system has a conserved response to nanomaterials, potentially influenced by evolutionary exposure to natural nano-sized matter.
The varied transcriptomic response to nanoparticles has hampered the understanding of the mechanism of action. Here, by performing a meta-analysis of a large collection of transcriptomics data from various engineered nanoparticle exposure studies, we identify common patterns of gene regulation that impact the transcriptomic response. Analysis identifies deregulation of immune functions as a prominent response across different exposure studies. Looking at the promoter regions of these genes, a set of binding sites for zinc finger transcription factors C2H2, involved in cell stress responses, protein misfolding and chromatin remodelling and immunomodulation, is identified. The model can be used to explain the outcomes of mechanism of action and is observed across a range of species indicating this is a conserved part of the innate immune system. While engineered nanomaterials are relatively new, organisms have been exposed to natural nanoparticles over vast periods of time. Here the authors explore the possibility that common mechanisms of response to nanomaterials may have resulted from a long evolutionary exposure history to natural nano-sized matter.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available