4.7 Article

Examination of Surfactant Protein D as a Biomarker for Evaluating Pulmonary Toxicity of Nanomaterials in Rat

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22094635

关键词

surfactant protein D; kinetics; pulmonary toxicity; biomarker; nanomaterials

资金

  1. Development of Innovative Methodology for Safety Assessment of Industrial Nanomaterials by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that there are different levels of lung toxicity between high-toxicity and low-toxicity nanomaterials, as well as differences in the expression levels of SP-D in lung tissue and in the body. SP-D in BALF and serum can serve as biomarkers for evaluating pulmonary toxicity of nanomaterials.
This work studies the relationship between lung inflammation caused by nanomaterials and surfactant protein D (SP-D) kinetics and investigates whether SP-D can be a biomarker of the pulmonary toxicity of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials of nickel oxide and cerium dioxide were classified as having high toxicity, nanomaterials of two types of titanium dioxides and zinc oxide were classified as having low toxicity, and rat biological samples obtained from 3 days to 6 months after intratracheal instillation of those nanomaterials and micron-particles of crystalline silica were used. There were different tendencies of increase between the high- and low-toxicity materials in the concentration of SP-D in bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid (BALF) and serum and in the expression of the SP-D gene in the lung tissue. An analysis of the receiver operating characteristics for the toxicity of the nanomaterials by SP-D in BALF and serum showed a high accuracy of discrimination from 1 week to 3 or 6 months after exposure. These data suggest that the differences in the expression of SP-D in BALF and serum depended on the level of lung inflammation caused by the nanomaterials and that SP-D can be biomarkers for evaluating the pulmonary toxicity of nanomaterials.

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