3.9 Article

Retinopathy Induced by Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles in Rats Assessed by Micro-computed Tomography and Histopathology

期刊

TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 157-163

出版社

KOREAN SOC TOXICOLOGY
DOI: 10.5487/TR.2015.31.2.157

关键词

Zinc oxide; Nanoparticles; Ocular toxicity; Micro-CT; Histopathology

资金

  1. Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety [13181MFDS605]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanotechnology has advanced at an extremely rapid pace over the past several years in numerous fields of research. However, the uptake of nanoparticles (NPs) into the body after administration through various routes may pose a risk to human health. In this study, we investigated the potential ocular toxicity of 20-nm, negatively-charged zinc oxide (ZnO) NPs in rats using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) and histopathological assessment. Animals were divided into four groups as control group, ZnO NPs treatment group (500 mg/kg/day), control recovery group, and ZnO NPs treatment and recovery group. Ocular samples were prepared from animals treated for 90 days (10 males and 10 females, respectively) and from recovery animals (5 males and 5 females, respectively) sacrificed at 14 days after final treatment and were compared to age-matched control animals. Micro-CT analyses represented the deposition and distribution of foreign materials in the eyes of rats treated with ZnO NPs, whereas control animals showed no such findings. X-ray fluorescence spectrometry and energy dispersive spectrometry showed the intraocular foreign materials as zinc in treated rats, whereas control animals showed no zinc signal. Histopathological examination revealed the retinopathy in the eyes of rats treated with ZnO NPs. Neuronal nuclei expression was decreased in neurons of the ganglion cell layer of animals treated with ZnO NPs compared to the control group. Taken together, treatment with 20-nm, negatively-charged ZnO NPs increased retinopathy, associated with local distribution of them in ocular lesions.

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

3.9
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