| Title |
Evaluation of oxidative response and tissular damage in rat lungs exposed to silica-coated gold nanoparticles under static magnetic fields
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s103140 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Soumaya Ferchichi, Hamdi Trabelsi, Inès Azzouz, Amel Hanini, Ahmed Rejeb, Olfa Tebourbi, Mohsen Sakly, Hafedh Abdelmelek |
| Abstract |
The purpose of our study was the evaluation of toxicological effects of silica-coated gold nanoparticles (GNPs) and static magnetic fields (SMFs; 128 mT) exposure in rat lungs. Animals received a single injection of GNPs (1,100 µg/kg, 100 nm, intraperitoneally) and were exposed to SMFs, over 14 days (1 h/day). Results showed that GNPs treatment induced a hyperplasia of bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue. Fluorescence microscopy images showed that red fluorescence signal was detected in rat lungs after 2 weeks from the single injection of GNPs. Oxidative response study showed that GNPs exposure increased malondialdehyde level and decreased CuZn-superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase activities in rat lungs. Furthermore, the histopathological study showed that combined effects of GNPs and SMFs led to more tissular damages in rat lungs in comparison with GNPs-treated rats. Interestingly, intensity of red fluorescence signal was enhanced after exposure to SMFs indicating a higher accumulation of GNPs in rat lungs under magnetic environment. Moreover, rats coexposed to GNPs and SMFs showed an increased malondialdehyde level, a fall of CuZn-superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase activities in comparison with GNPs-treated group. Hence, SMFs exposure increased the accumulation of GNPs in rat lungs and led to more toxic effects of these nanocomplexes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 25% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 June 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,088
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,253
of 353,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#70
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.