Transcriptomic Analysis Reveals Novel Mechanistic Insight into Murine Biological Responses to Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes in Lungs and Cultured Lung Epithelial Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is great interest in substituting animal work with in vitro experimentation in human health risk assessment; however, there are only few comparisons of in vitro and in vivo biological responses to engineered nanomaterials. We used high-content genomics tools to compare in vivo pulmonary responses of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) to those in vitro in cultured lung epithelial cells (FE1) at the global transcriptomic level. Primary size, surface area and other properties of MWCNT- XNRI -7 (Mitsui7) were characterized using DLS, SEM and TEM. Mice were exposed via a single intratracheal instillation to 18, 54, or 162 μg of Mitsui7/mouse. FE1 cells were incubated with 12.5, 25 and 100 μg/ml of Mitsui7. Tissue and cell samples were collected at 24 hours post-exposure. DNA microarrays were employed to establish mechanistic differences and similarities between the two models. Microarray results were confirmed using gene-specific RT-qPCR. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid was assessed for indications of inflammation in vivo. A strong dose-dependent activation of acute phase and inflammation response was observed in mouse lungs reflective mainly of an inflammatory response as observed in BAL. In vitro, a wide variety of core cellular functions were affected including transcription, cell cycle, and cellular growth and proliferation. Oxidative stress, fibrosis and inflammation processes were altered in both models. Although there were similarities observed between the two models at the pathway-level, the specific genes altered under these pathways were different, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms of responses are different in cells in culture and the lung tissue. Our results suggest that careful consideration should be given in selecting relevant endpoints when substituting animal with in vitro testing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".