Advertisement

Nanotoxicity pp 331-343 | Cite as

Nanotoxicity Assessment Using Embryonic Zebrafish

  • Eduard Dumitrescu
  • Kenneth Wallace
  • Silvana AndreescuEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1894)

Abstract

The emergence of nanomaterials in industrial processing and consumer products has generated an increased presence of nano-enabled products in the environment and now pose an increased risk of exposure to living organisms. However, assessing the risks of nanomaterials is a challenging task because of a large variety and great variability in their properties. Here, we describe a methodology for assessing toxicity and evaluate potential risks posed by nanomaterials using zebrafish embryos as a model organism. Zebrafish are a well-established organism that has a number of advantages over other biological models. These include optical transparency, similar structure and arrangement of organs, and conserved genetic pathways compared to other vertebrates. Their rapid development and high numbers of embryos enables high throughput screening to study toxicity of a large number of nanomaterials. The method described in this chapter can be used as a universal screening approach to assess toxicity of any type of nanomaterials, determine both lethal and sublethal effects, measure LD50 doses, evaluate morphological and organ defects, cell apoptosis, and production of reactive species.

Key words

Nanomaterials Nanoparticles Nanotoxicity Zebrafish embryos Viability assay Histology Apoptosis Oxidative stress 

References

  1. 1.
    Roco MC (2011) The long view of nanotechnology development: the National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years. J Nanopart Res 13(2):427–445.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-0192-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vance ME, Kuiken T, Vejerano EP, McGinnis SP, Hochella MF, Rejeski D, Hull MS (2015) Nanotechnology in the real world: redeveloping the nanomaterial consumer products inventory. Beilstein J Nanotechnol 6:1769–1780.  https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.6.181CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keller AA, Lazareva A (2014) Predicted releases of engineered nanomaterials: from global to regional to local. Environ Sci Technol Lett 1(1):65–70.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ez400106tCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Service RF (2004) Nanotechnology grows up. Science 304(5678):1732–1734.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.304.5678.1732CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andreescu S, Gheorghiu M, Özel RE, Wallace KN (2011) Methodologies for toxicity monitoring and nanotechnology risk assessment. In: Biotechnology and nanotechnology risk assessment: minding and managing the potential threats around US, vol 1079. ACS Symposium Series, vol 1079. American Chemical Society, pp. 141–180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2011-1079.ch007Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hill AJ, Teraoka H, Heideman W, Peterson RE (2005) Zebrafish as a model vertebrate for investigating chemical toxicity. Toxicol Sci 86(1):6–19.  https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfi110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scholz S, Fischer S, Gündel U, Küster E, Luckenbach T, Voelker D (2008) The zebrafish embryo model in environmental risk assessment—applications beyond acute toxicity testing. Environ Sci Pollut Res 15(5):394–404.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-008-0018-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fako VE, Furgeson DY (2009) Zebrafish as a correlative and predictive model for assessing biomaterial nanotoxicity. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 61(6):478–486.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2009.03.008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    George S, Xia T, Rallo R, Zhao Y, Ji Z, Lin S, Wang X, Zhang H, France B, Schoenfeld D, Damoiseaux R, Liu R, Lin S, Bradley KA, Cohen Y, Nel AE (2011) Use of a high throughput screening approach coupled with in vivo zebrafish embryo screening to develop hazard ranking for engineered nanomaterials. ACS Nano 5(3):1805–1817.  https://doi.org/10.1021/nn102734sCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bar-Ilan O, Albrecht RM, Fako VE, Furgeson DY (2009) Toxicity assessments of multisized gold and silver nanoparticles in zebrafish embryos. Small 5(16):1897–1910.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.200801716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Westerfield M (2007) The zebrafish book: a guide for the laboratory use of zebrafish (Danio rerio), 5th edn. University of Oregon Press, Eugene, ORGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nusslein-Volhard C, Dahm R (2002) Zebrafish. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Randhawa MA (2009) Calculation of LD50 values from the method of Miller and Tainter, 1944. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 21(3):184–185PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ispas C, Andreescu D, Patel A, Goia DV, Andreescu S, Wallace KN (2009) Toxicity and developmental defects of different sizes and shape nickel nanoparticles in zebrafish. Environ Sci Technol 43(16):6349–6356.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es9010543CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dumitrescu E, Karunaratne DP, Prochaska MK, Liu X, Wallace KN, Andreescu S (2017) Developmental toxicity of glycine-coated silica nanoparticles in embryonic zebrafish. Environ Pollut 229(Supplement C):439–447.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.06.016CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Özel RE, Alkasir RSJ, Ray K, Wallace KN, Andreescu S (2013) Comparative evaluation of intestinal nitric oxide in embryonic zebrafish exposed to metal oxide nanoparticles. Small 9(24):4250–4261.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201301087CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduard Dumitrescu
    • 1
  • Kenneth Wallace
    • 2
  • Silvana Andreescu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Chemistry and Biomolecular ScienceClarkson UniversityPotsdamUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyClarkson UniversityPotsdamUSA

Personalised recommendations