4.3 Article

Nickel oxide nanoparticles induced pulmonary fibrosis via TGF-1 activation in rats

期刊

HUMAN & EXPERIMENTAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 36, 期 8, 页码 802-812

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0960327116666650

关键词

Nanoparticle; nickel oxide; pulmonary fibrosis; collagen; TGF-1

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [lzujbky-2015-186, lzujbky-2016-204, lzujbky-2016-205]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81402703]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nano nickel oxide (NiO), widely used in industry, has recently been discovered to have pulmonary toxicity. However, no subchronic exposure studies about nano NiO-induced pulmonary fibrosis have been reported. The objective of this study was to investigate pulmonary fibrosis induced by nano NiO and its potential mechanism in rats. Male Wistar rats (n = 40, 200-240 g) were randomized into control group, nano NiO groups (0.015, 0.06, and 0.24 mg/kg), and micro NiO group (0.024 mg/kg). All rats were killed to collect lung tissue after intratracheal instillation of NiO particles twice a week for 6 weeks. To identify pulmonary fibrosis, Masson trichrome staining, hydroxyproline content, and collagen protein expression were performed. The results showed widespread lung fibrotic injury in histological examination and increased content of hydroxyproline, collagen types I and III in rat lung tissue exposed to nano NiO. To explore the potential pulmonary fibrosis mechanism, transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-1) content was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and the messenger RNA expression of key indicators was detected by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). The TGF-1 content was increased in nano NiO exposure groups, as well as the upregulated gene expression of TGF-1, Smad2, Smad4, matrix metalloproteinase, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase. The findings indicated that nano NiO could induce pulmonary fibrosis, which may be related to TGF-1 activation.

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

4.3
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