Cited by 78Carcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentNanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsImmunotoxicology and immune responses

Genotoxicity analysis of cerium oxide micro and nanoparticles in Wistar rats after 28 days of repeated oral administration

Kumari, M., Kumari, S. I., Grover, P.·2014·Mutagenesis

Abstract

The applications of cerium oxide nanoparticles (CeO2 NPs; nanoceria) extend to polishing agents, diesel fuel additives and as a putative antioxidant in therapeutics. Therefore, understanding the long-term toxic effects of CeO2 NPs is of particular importance. This study investigated the 28 days of repeated toxicity of 30, 300 and 600 mg/kg body weight (bw)/day of nanoceria and CeO2 microparticles (MPs) in Wistar rats after oral exposure. Genotoxicity was analysed using comet, micronucleus (MN) and chromosomal aberration (CA) assays. The results demonstrated a significant increase in DNA damage in peripheral blood leukocytes and liver, MN and CA in bone marrow as well as MN in peripheral blood after exposure to CeO2 NPs at 300 and 600 mg/kg bw/day. Significant alterations were observed in alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase activity in serum and reduced glutathione content in the liver, kidneys and brain at 300 and 600 mg/kg bw/day in a dose-dependent manner. Conversely, CeO2 MPs did not induce any significant toxicological changes. A much higher absorptivity and significant tissue distribution of CeO2 NPs was perceived in comparison to CeO2 MPs in a dose-dependent manner. A substantial fraction of CeO2 NPs was cleared by urine and faeces. Histopathological analysis revealed that CeO2 NPs caused alterations in liver, spleen and brain. Further, distinct difference in the data among genders was not obvious. In general, the results suggested that prolonged oral exposure to nanoceria has the potential to cause genetic damage, biochemical alterations and histological changes after retention in vital organs of rats at high concentrations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mutage/geu038

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kumari, M., Kumari, S. I., & Grover, P.
Affiliations
Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IN)
Corresponding author
Grover, P.
Venue
Mutagenesis
Published
2014-09-10
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
467-479
ISSN
  • 0267-8357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3804
OpenAlex
W2162902890
Cited by
78
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4
FWCI
1.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Mutagenesis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University Grants Commission
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
Keywords
cerium oxide nanoparticles, genotoxicity, repeated oral administration, DNA damage, micronuclei, chromosomal abnormalities, oxidative stress, reduced glutathione, tissue distribution, histopathology, chronic toxicity, Wistar rats
MeSH terms
Administration, Oral, Alkaline Phosphatase, Animals, Body Weight, Cerium, Chromosome Aberrations, Feeding Behavior, Female, Glutathione, L-Lactate Dehydrogenase, Male, Mutagenicity Tests, Mutagens, Organ Specificity, Organ Size, Tissue Distribution, Micronucleus Tests, Rats, Wistar, Comet Assay, Nanoparticles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review