4.7 Article

Size-dependent effects of polystyrene microplastics on cytotoxicity and efflux pump inhibition in human Caco-2 cells

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 221, 期 -, 页码 333-341

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.01.056

关键词

Polystyrene microplastics; Size; Caco-2 cell; Cytotoxicity; ABC transporter

资金

  1. Natural Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFA0203103]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21806078]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20170633]
  4. Key Research and Development Program of Jiangsu Province [BE2017709]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microplastics in the environment may gain entry the human gastrointestinal tract through the food chain. However, information on different adverse effects of microplastics at nanometer or micrometer scales in human intestine cells is limited. This study compared the cytotoxicity and efflux pump inhibition ability of 0.1 mu m and 5 mu m polystyrene microplastics (PS-MPs) in the human colon adenocarcinoma Caco-2 cells. Both PS-MP sizes exhibited low toxicity on cell viability, oxidative stress, and membrane integrity and fluidity. However, the mitochondrial membrane potential was disrupted by both sizes of PS-MPs, and the 5 mu m PS-MPs induced higher effects than 0.1 mu m PS-MPs. Furthermore, 0.1 mu m (>20 mu g/mL) or 5 mu m (>80 mu g/mL) PS-MPs inhibited plasma membrane ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter activity and increased arsenic (one substrate of ABC transporter) toxicity. The 0.1 mu m PS-MPs might act as substrates of ABC transporter to reduce the transport capacity of other substrates. However, high concentrations of 5 mu m PS-MPs might reduce ABC transporter activity through induction of mitochondrial depolarization and potential depletion of ATP. This study provides basic information on the toxicity of 0.1 mu m and 5 mu m PS-MPs in human intestine cells, which are useful for assessing the risk of PS-MPs in humans. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据