Toxicogenomics analysis of mouse lung responses following exposure to titanium dioxide nanomaterials reveal their disease potential at high doses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2NPs) induce lung inflammation in experimental animals. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive toxicogenomic analysis of lung responses in mice exposed to six individual TiO2NPs exhibiting different sizes (8, 20 and 300nm), crystalline structure (anatase, rutile or anatase/rutile) and surface modifications (hydrophobic or hydrophilic) to investigate whether the mechanisms leading to TiO2NP-induced lung inflammation are property specific. A detailed histopathological analysis was conducted to investigate the long-term disease implications of acute exposure to TiO2NPs. C57BL/6 mice were exposed to 18, 54, 162 or 486 µg of TiO2NPs/mouse via single intratracheal instillation. Controls were exposed to dispersion medium only. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and lung tissue were sampled on 1, 28 and 90 days post-exposure. Although all TiO2NPs induced lung inflammation as measured by the neutrophil influx in BALF, rutile-type TiO2NPs induced higher inflammation with the hydrophilic rutile TiO2NP showing the maximum increase. Accordingly, the rutile TiO2NPs induced higher number of differentially expressed genes. Histopathological analysis of lung sections on Day 90 post-exposure showed increased collagen staining and fibrosis-like changes following exposure to the rutile TiO2NPs at the highest dose tested. Among the anatase, the smallest TiO2NP of 8nm showed the maximum response. The anatase TiO2NP of 300nm was the least responsive of all. The results suggest that the severity of lung inflammation is property specific; however, the underlying mechanisms (genes and pathways perturbed) leading to inflammation were the same for all particle types. While the particle size clearly influenced the overall acute lung responses, a combination of small size, crystalline structure and hydrophilic surface contributed to the long-term pathological effects observed at the highest dose (486 µg/mouse). Although the dose at which the pathological changes were observed is considered physiologically high, the study highlights the disease potential of certain TiO2NPs of specific properties.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".