Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles are More Toxic than Equimolar Bulk Cerium Oxide in Caenorhabditis elegans

  • M. C. Arnold
  • A. R. Badireddy
  • M. R. Wiesner
  • R. T. Di Giulio
  • J. N. Meyer
Article
  • 1.3k Downloads

Abstract

Engineered cerium oxide nanoparticles (CeO2 NPs) are widely used in biomedical and engineering manufacturing industries. Previous research has shown the ability of CeO2 NPs to act as a redox catalyst, suggesting potential to both induce and alleviate oxidative stress in organisms. In this study, Caenorhabditis elegans and zebrafish (Danio rerio) were dosed with commercially available CeO2 NPs. Non-nano cerium oxide powder (CeO2) was used as a positive control for cerium toxicity. CeO2 NPs suspended in standard United States Environmental Protection Agency reconstituted moderately hard water, used to culture the C. elegans, quickly formed large polydisperse aggregates. Dosing solutions were renewed daily for 3 days. Exposure of wild-type nematodes resulted in dose-dependent growth inhibition detected for all 3 days (p < 0.0001). Non-nano CeO2 also caused significant growth inhibition (p < 0.0001), but the scale of inhibition was less at equivalent mass exposures compared with CeO2 NP exposure. Some metal and oxidative stress-sensitive mutant nematode strains showed mildly altered growth relative to the wild-type when dosed with 5 mg/L CeO2 NPs on days 2 and 3, thus providing weak evidence for a role for oxidative stress or metal sensitivity in CeO2 NP toxicity. Zebrafish microinjected with CeO2 NPs or CeO2 did not exhibit increased gross developmental defects compared with controls. Hyperspectral imaging showed that CeO2 NPs were ingested but not detectable inside the cells of C. elegans. Growth inhibition observed in C. elegans may be explained at least in part by a non-specific inhibition of feeding caused by CeO2 NPs aggregating around bacterial food and/or inside the gut tract.

Supplementary material

244_2013_9905_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (420 kb)
Online Resource 1. Soluble cerium (mg/L) in supernatant from CeO2 NP dosing solutions after 2 h ultracentrifugation (273865 x g) over three days. (JPG 421 kb)
244_2013_9905_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (664 kb)
Online Resource 2. Growth of N2 and sod3 worms treated with CeO2 NPs or H2O2. Asterisks indicate P<0.0001 as determined by Mann-Whitney U-test. (JPG 664 kb)
244_2013_9905_MOESM3_ESM.docx (26 kb)
Online Resource 3-4. (DOCX 27 kb)

References

  1. Bach U, Corr D, Lupo D, Pichot F, Ryan M (2002) Nanomaterials-based electrochromics for paper-quality displays. Adv Mater 14(11):845–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billiard SM, Timme-Laragy AR, Wassenberg DW, Cockman C, Di Giulio RT (2006) The role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor pathway in mediating synergistic developmental toxicity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to zebrafish. Toxicol Sci 92(2):526–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choi JE, Kim S, Ahn JH, Youn P, Kang JS, Park K et al (2010) Induction of oxidative stress and apoptosis by silver nanoparticles in the liver of adult zebrafish. Aquat Toxicol 100(2):151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corma A, Atienzar P, García H, Chane-Ching J-V (2004) Hierarchically mesostructured doped CeO2 with potential for solar-cell use. Nature Mater 3(6):394–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Croteau DL, DellaVecchia MJ, Perera L, Van Houten B (2008) Cooperative damage recognition by UvrA and UvrB: identification of UvrA residues that mediate DNA binding. DNA Repair (Amst.) 7:392–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Das M, Patil S, Bhargavaa N, Kanga J-F, Riedela LM, Sealb S et al (2007) Auto-catalytic ceria nanoparticles offer neuroprotection to adult rat spinal cord neurons. Biomaterials 28(10):1918–1925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Di Giulio RT, Meyer JN (2008) Reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. In: Di Giulio RT, Hinton DE (eds) The toxicology of fishes. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 273–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dingley S, Polyak E, Lightfoot R, Ostrovskya J, Raoa M, Grecob T et al (2010) Mitochondrial respiratory chain dysfunction variably increases oxidant stress in Caenorhabditis elegans. Mitochondrion 10(2):125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eom HJ, Choi J (2009) Oxidative stress of CeO(2) nanoparticles via p38–Nrf–2 signaling pathway in human bronchial epithelial cell, Beas-2B. Toxicol Lett 187(2):77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freedman JH, Slice LW, Dixon D, Fire A, Rubin CS (1993) The novel metallothionein genes of Caenorhabditis elegans—Structural organization and inducible, cell-specific expression. J Biol Chem 268(4):2554–2564Google Scholar
  11. Gorensek M, Recetj P (2007) Nanosilver functionalized cotton fabric. Textile Res J 77(3):138–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heckert EG, Karakoti AS, Seal S, Self WT (2008) The role of cerium redox state in the SOD mimetic activity of nanoceria. Biomaterials 29(18):2705–2709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hughes SL, Bundy JG, Want EJ, Kille P, Stürzenbaum SR (2009) The metabolomic responses of Caenorhabditis elegans to cadmium are largely independent of metallothionein status, but dominated by changes in cystathionine and phytochelatins. J Proteome Res 8(7):3512–3519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunter T, Bannister WH, Hunter GJ (1997) Cloning, expression, and characterization of two manganese superoxide dismutases from Caenorhabditis elegans. J Biol Chem 272(45):28652–28659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hunter SE, Gustafson MA, Margillo KM, Lee SA, Ryde IT, Meyer JN (2012) In vivo repair of alkylating and oxidative DNA damage in the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes of wild-type and glycosylase-deficient Caenorhabditis elegans. DNA Repair 11(11):857–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnston BD, Scown TM, Moger J, Cumberland SA, Baalousha M, Linge K et al (2010) Bioavailability of nanoscale metal oxides TiO(2), CeO(2), and ZnO to fish. Environ Sci Technol 44(3):1144–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lin W, Huang YW, Zhou X-D, Ma Y (2006) Toxicity of cerium oxide nanoparticles in human lung cancer cells. Int J Toxicol 25(6):451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Matson CW, Timme-Laragy AR, Di Giulio RT (2008) Fluoranthene, but not benzo[a]pyrene, interacts with hypoxia resulting in pericardial effusion and lordosis in developing zebrafish. Chemosphere 74(1):149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McWilliams A (2010) Nanotechnology: a realistic market assessment. BCC Research, WellesleyGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyer JN, Boyd WA, Azzam GA, Haugen AC, Freedman JH, Van Houten B (2007) Decline of nucleotide excision repair capacity in aging Caenorhabditis elegans. Genome Biol 8(5):R70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meyer JN, Lord CA, Yang XY, Turner EA, Badireddy AR, Marinakos SM et al (2010) Intracellular uptake and associated toxicity of silver nanoparticles in Caenorhabditis elegans. Aquat Toxicol 100(2):140–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murray EP, Tsai T, Barnett SA (1999) A direct-methane fuel cell with a ceria-based anode. Nature 400(6745):649–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Niu JL, Azfer A, Rogers LM, Wang X, Kolattukudy PE (2007) Cardioprotective effects of cerium oxide nanoparticles in a transgenic murine model of cardiomyopathy. Cardiovasc Res 73(3):549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nohynek GJ, Lademann J, Ribaud C, Roberts MS (2007) Grey goo on the skin? Nanotechnology, cosmetic and sunscreen safety. Crit Rev Toxicol 37(3):251–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Park B, Donaldson K, Duffin R, Tran L, Kelly F, Mudway I et al (2008a) Hazard and risk assessment of a nanoparticulate cerium oxide-based diesel fuel additive—A case study. Inhal Toxicol 20(6):547–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Park EJ, Choi J, Park Y-K, Park K (2008b) Oxidative stress induced by cerium oxide nanoparticles in cultured BEAS-2B cells. Toxicology 245(1–2):90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roh JY, Park YK, Park K, Choi J (2010) Ecotoxicological investigation of CeO2 and TiO2 nanoparticles on the soil nematode Caenorhabditis elegans using gene expression, growth, fertility, and survival as endpoints. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 29(2):167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Swain SC, Keusekotten K, Baumeister R, Stürzenbaum SR (2004) C. elegans metallothioneins: new insights into the phenotypic effects of cadmium toxicosis. J Mol Biol 341(4):951–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tiede K, Hassellov M, Breitbarth E, Chaudhry Q, Boxalla ABA (2009) Considerations for environmental fate and ecotoxicity testing to support environmental risk assessments for engineered nanoparticles. J Chromatogr A 1216(3):503–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Timme-Laragy AR, Van Tiem LA, Linney EA, Di Giulio RT (2009) Antioxidant responses and NRF2 in synergistic developmental toxicity of PAHs in zebrafish. Toxicol Sci 109(2):217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. USEPA (2002) Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater and marine organisms. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Hoecke K, Quik JT, Mankiewicz-Boczek J, De Schamphelaere KAC, Elsaesser A, Van der Meeren P et al (2009) Fate and effects of CeO2 nanoparticles in aquatic ecotoxicity tests. Environ Sci Technol 43(12):4537–4546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Tiem LA, Di Giulio RT (2011) AHR2 knockdown prevents PAH-mediated cardiac toxicity and XRE- and ARE-associated gene induction in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 254(3):280–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vatamaniuk OK, Bucher EA, Ward JT, Rea PA (2001) A new pathway for heavy metal detoxification in animals—Phytochelatin synthase is required for cadmium tolerance in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Biol Chem 276(24):20817–20820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang R, Crozier PA, Sharma R, Adams JB (2008) Measuring the redox activity of individual catalytic nanoparticles in cerium-based oxides. Nano Lett 8(3):962–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xia T, Kovochich M, Brant J, Hotze M, Sempf J, Oberley T et al (2006) Comparison of the abilities of ambient and manufactured nanoparticles to induce cellular toxicity according to an oxidative stress paradigm. Nano Lett 6(8):1794–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xia T, Kovochich M, Liong M, Mädler L, Gilbert B, Shi H et al (2008) Comparison of the mechanism of toxicity of zinc oxide and cerium oxide nanoparticles based on dissolution and oxidative stress properties. ACS Nano 2(10):2121–2134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang X, Gondikas AP, Marinakos SM, Auffan M, Liu J, Hsu-Kim H et al (2012) Mechanism of silver nanoparticle toxicity is dependent on dissolved silver and surface coating in Caenorhabditis elegans. Environ Sci Technol 46(2):1119–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang HF, He XA, Zhang Z, Zhang P, Li Y, Ma Y et al (2011) Nano-CeO2 exhibits adverse effects at environmental relevant concentrations. Environ Sci Technol 45(8):3725–3730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zheng XC, Zhang XL, Wang X, Wang S, Wub S (2005) Preparation and characterization of CuO/CeO2 catalysts and their applications in low-temperature CO oxidation. Appl catal A Gen 295(2):142–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhou XD, Huebner W, Anderson HU (2003) Processing of nanometer-scale CeO2 particles. Chem Mater 15(2):378–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhu XS, Zhu L, Yan Y, Duan Z, Chen W, Alvarez PJJ (2007) Developmental toxicity in zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos after exposure to manufactured nanomaterials: buckminsterfullerene aggregates (nC(60)) and fullerol. Environ Toxicol Chem 26(5):976–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. C. Arnold
    • 1
  • A. R. Badireddy
    • 2
  • M. R. Wiesner
    • 2
  • R. T. Di Giulio
    • 1
  • J. N. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Pratt School of EngineeringDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations