4.6 Article

Ti3C2 (MXene) nanosheets disrupt spermatogenesis in male mice mediated by the ATM/p53 signaling pathway

期刊

BIOLOGY DIRECT
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13062-023-00382-w

关键词

Spermatogenesis; Ti3C2 nanosheets; Spermatogonia; DNA damage; ATM; p53 signaling pathway

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the reproductive toxicity of two-dimensional ultrathin Ti3C2 nanosheets in the testes. It found that exposure to Ti3C2 nanosheets caused defects in spermatogenic function, possibly due to oxidative stress and DNA damage.
Background Two-dimensional ultrathin Ti3C2 nanosheets are increasingly being used in biomedical applications owing to their special physicochemical properties. But, the biological effects of its exposure on the reproductive system is still unclear. This study evaluated the reproductive toxicity of Ti3C2 nanosheets in the testes. Results Ti3C2 nanosheets at doses of 2.5 mg/kg bw and 5 mg/kg bw in mice caused defects in spermatogenic function, and we also clarified an underlying molecular mechanism of it in vivo and in vitro model. Ti3C2 nanosheets induced an increase of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in testicular and GC-1 cells, which in turn led to the imbalance in oxidative and antioxidant systems (also known as oxidative stress). Additionally, oxidative stress often induces cellular DNA strand damages via the oxidative DNA damages, which triggered cell cycle arrest in the G1/G0 phase, leading to cell proliferation inhibition and irreversible apoptosis. ATM/p53 signaling manifest key role in DNA damage repair (DDR), and we demonstrate that ATM/p53 signaling was activated, and mediated the toxic damage process caused by Ti3C2 nanosheet exposure. Conclusion Ti3C2 nanosheet-induced disruption of proliferation and apoptosis of spermatogonia perturbed normal spermatogenic function that was mediated by ATM/p53 signaling pathway. Our findings shed more light on the mechanisms of male reproductive toxicity induced by Ti3C2 nanosheets.

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

4.6
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