Differential Effects and Potential Adverse Outcomes of Ionic Silver and Silver Nanoparticles in Vivo and in Vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanoparticles are of concern because of widespread use, but it is unclear if metal nanoparticles cause effects directly or indirectly. We explored whether polyvinylpyrrolidone-coated silver nanoparticles (PVP-AgNPs) cause effects through intact nanoparticles or dissolved silver. Females of the model species fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) were exposed to either 4.8 μg/L of AgNO3 or 61.4 μg/L of PVP-AgNPs for 96h. Microarray analyses were used to identify impacted receptors and toxicity pathways in liver and brain tissues that were confirmed using in vitro mammalian assays. AgNO3 and PVP-AgNP exposed fish had common and distinct effects consistent with both intact nanoparticles and dissolved silver causing effects. PVP-AgNPs and AgNO3 both affected pathways involved in Na(+), K(+), and H(+) homeostasis and oxidative stress but different neurotoxicity pathways. In vivo effects were supported by PVP-AgNP activation of five in vitro nuclear receptor assays and inhibition of ligand binding to the dopamine receptor. AgNO3 inhibited ligand binding to adrenergic receptors α1 and α2 and cannabinoid receptor CB1, but had no effect in nuclear receptor assays. PVP-AgNPs have the potential to cause effects both through intact nanoparticles and metal ions, each interacting with different initiating events. Since the in vitro and in vivo assays examined here are commonly used in human and ecological hazard screening, this work suggests that environmental health assessments should consider effects of intact nanoparticles in addition to dissolved metals.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".