Molecular impacts of dietary exposure to nanoplastics combined with arsenic in Canadian oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and bioaccumulation comparison with Caribbean oysters (Isognomon alatus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the urge need to address the possible impact of plastic debris, up to now, little is known about the translocation of nanoplastics through the trophic web. Plus, due to their surface reactivity, nanoplastics could sorb and thus increase metals bioavailability to aquatic filter-feeding organisms (e.g., bivalves). In this study, we investigated the dietary exposure route on the oyster Crassostrea virginica through microalgae themselves exposed to three nanoplastic dispersions (PSL, PSC and NPG) at reportedly environmental concentrations combined or not with arsenic. Interactive effects of nanoplastics on arsenic bioaccumulation were studied, along with the expression of key genes in gills and visceral mass. The investigated gene functions were endocytosis (cltc), oxidative stress (gapdh, sod3, cat), mitochondrial metabolism (12S), cell cycle regulation (gadd45, p53), apoptosis (bax, bcl-2), detoxification (cyp1a, mdr, mt), and energy storage (vit). Results showcased that nanoplastic treatments combined with arsenic triggered synergetic effects on gene expressions. Relative mRNA level of 12S significantly increased at 10 and 100 μg L−1 for NPG combined with arsenic and for PSC combined with arsenic. Relative mRNA level of bax increased for PSL combined with arsenic and for PSC combined with arsenic at 10 and 100 μg L−1 respectively. We also observed that relative arsenic bioaccumulation was significantly higher in Crassostrea virginica gills compared to Isognomon alatus’. These results are the first comparative molecular effects of nanoplastics alone and combined with arsenic investigated in farmed C. virginica oysters. Together with I. alatus results we thus shed light on species different sensitivity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".