4.6 Article

Silicon dioxide nanoparticle exposure affects small intestine function in an in vitro model

期刊

NANOTOXICOLOGY
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 485-508

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17435390.2018.1463407

关键词

Consumer products; exposure; food; SiO2; risk assessment

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1R15ES022828]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [R15ES022828] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of nanomaterials to enhance properties of food and improve delivery of orally administered drugs has become common, but the potential health effects of these ingested nanomaterials remain unknown. The goal of this study is to characterize the properties of silicon dioxide (SiO2) nanoparticles (NP) that are commonly used in food and food packaging, and to investigate the effects of physiologically realistic doses of SiO2 NP on gastrointestinal (GI) health and function. In this work, an in vitro model composed of Caco-2 and HT29-MTX co-cultures, which represent absorptive and goblet cells, was used. The model was exposed to well-characterized SiO2 NP for acute (4h) and chronic (5d) time periods. SiO2 NP exposure significantly affected iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), glucose, and lipid nutrient absorption. Brush border membrane intestinal alkaline phosphatase (IAP) activity was increased in response to nano-SiO2. The barrier function of the intestinal epithelium, as measured by transepithelial electrical resistance, was significantly decreased in response to chronic exposure. Gene expression and oxidative stress formation analysis showed NP altered the expression levels of nutrient transport proteins, generated reactive oxygen species, and initiated pro-inflammatory signaling. SiO2 NP exposure damaged the brush border membrane by decreasing the number of intestinal microvilli, which decreased the surface area available for nutrient absorption. SiO2 NP exposure at physiologically relevant doses ultimately caused adverse outcomes in an in vitro model.

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