4.6 Article

Metabolomic and proteomic investigations of impacts of titanium dioxide nanoparticles on Escherichia coli

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178437

关键词

-

资金

  1. Region Ile-de-France
  2. nanoscience competence center of Paris Region
  3. iCEINT, International Consortium for the Environmental Implications of Nano Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a previous study, it was demonstrated that the toxic impact of titanium dioxide nanoparticles on Escherichia coli starts at 10 ppm and is closely related to the presence of little aggregates. It was also assumed that only a part of the bacterial population is able to adapt to this stress and attempts to survive. Proteomic analyses, supported by results from metabolomics, reveal that exposure of E. coli to nano-TiO2 induces two main effects on bacterial metabolism: firstly, the up-regulation of proteins and the increase of metabolites related to energy and growth metabolism; secondly, the down-regulation of other proteins resulting in an increase of metabolites, particularly amino acids. Some proteins, e.g. chaperonin 1 or isocitrate dehydrogenase, and some metabolites, e.g. phenylalanine or valine, might be used as biomarkers of nanoparticles stress. Astonishingly, the ATP content gradually rises in relation with the nano-TiO2 concentration in the medium, indicating a dramatic release of ATP by the damaged cells. These apparently contradictory results accredit the thesis of a heterogeneity of the bacterial population. This heterogeneity is also confirmed by SEM images which show that while some bacteria are fully covered by nano-TiO2, the major part of the bacterial population remains free from nanoparticles, resulting in a difference of proteome and metabolome. The use of combined-omics has allowed to better understand the heterogeneous bacterial response to nano-TiO2 stress due to heterogeneous contacts between the protagonists under environmental conditions.

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