4.8 Article

Effects of Graphene Oxide and Oxidized Carbon Nanotubes on the Cellular Division, Microstructure, Uptake, Oxidative Stress, and Metabolic Profiles

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 49, 期 18, 页码 10825-10833

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02102

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education of China [IRT 13024]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31170473, 21037002, 21307061, 21407085]
  3. Tianjin Natural Science Foundation [14JCQNJC08900]
  4. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [2013003112016]
  5. Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China [2014M550138]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanomaterial oxides are common formations of nanomaterials in the natural environment. Herein, the nanotoxicology of typical graphene oxide (GO) and carboxyl single-walled carbon nanotubes (C-SWCNT) was compared. The results showed that cell division of Chlorella vulgaris was promoted at 24 h and then inhibited at 96 h after nanomaterial exposure. At 96 h, GO and C-SWCNT inhibited the rates of cell division by 0.08-15% and 0.8-28.3%, respectively. Both GO and C-SWCNT covered the cell surface, but the uptake percentage of C-SWCNT was 2-fold higher than that of GO. C-SWCNT induced stronger plasmolysis and mitochondrial membrane potential loss and decreased the cell viability to a greater extent than GO. Moreover, C-SWCNT-exposed cells exhibited more starch grains and lysosome formation and higher reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels than GO-exposed cells. Metabolomics analysis revealed significant differences in the metabolic profiles among the control, C-SWCNT and GO groups. The metabolisms of alkanes, lysine, octadecadienoic acid and valine was associated with ROS and could be considered as new biomarkers of ROS. The nanotoxicological mechanisms involved the inhibition of fatty acid, amino acid and small molecule acid metabolisms. These findings provide new insights into the effects of GO and C-SWCNT on cellular responses.

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

4.8
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