4.5 Article

NOT ALL THAT GLITTERS IS GOLD-ELECTRON MICROSCOPY STUDY ON UPTAKE OF GOLD NANOPARTICLES IN DAPHNIA MAGNA AND RELATED ARTIFACTS

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 1503-1509

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.3697

关键词

Nanotoxicology; Nanoparticle; Freshwater toxicology; Aquatic invertebrate

资金

  1. European Research Council [281579]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing use of engineered nanoparticles has led to extensive research into their potential hazards to the environment and human health. Cellular uptake from the gut is sparsely investigated, and microscopy techniques applied for uptake studies can result in misinterpretations. Various microscopy techniques were used to investigate internalization of 10-nm gold nanoparticles in Daphnia magna gut lumen and gut epithelial cells following 24-h exposure and outline potential artifacts (i.e., high-contrast precipitates from sample preparation related to these techniques). Light sheet microscopy confirmed accumulation of gold nanoparticles in the gut lumen. Scanning transmission electron microscopy and elemental analysis revealed gold nanoparticles attached to the microvilli of gut cells. Interestingly, the peritrophic membrane appeared to act as a semipermeable barrier between the lumen and the gut epithelium, permitting only single particles through. Structures resembling nanoparticles were also observed inside gut cells. Elemental analysis could not verify these to be gold, and they were likely artifacts from the preparation, such as osmium and iron. Importantly, gold nanoparticles were found inside holocrine cells with disrupted membranes. Thus, false-positive observations of nanoparticle internalization may result from either preparation artifacts or mistaking disrupted cells for intact cells. These findings emphasize the importance of cell integrity and combining elemental analysis with the localization of internalized nanoparticles using transmission electron microscopy. (C) 2016 SETAC

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

4.5
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