Genotoxicity analysis of cerium oxide micro and nanoparticles in Wistar rats after 28 days of repeated oral administration
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Systemic genotoxic effects were reported after single and repeated oral administration of CeO2.
“systemic genotoxic effects were reported after single and repeated oral administration of CeO2 [49, 50]”
From Effects from a 90-day inhalation toxicity study with cerium oxide and barium sulfate nanoparticles in rats (2017) · cites this paper as [49]
Cites
Size-dependent toxicity of metal oxide particles—A comparison between nano- and micrometer size
Karlsson, H. L., Gustafsson, J., Cronholm, P., & Möller, L. (2009) · Toxicology Letters · doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.03.014 · Cited by 949 · see citing works
DNA damage induces reactive oxygen species generation through the H2AX-Nox1/Rac1 pathway
Kang, M. A., So, E.-Y., Simons, A. L., Spitz, D. R., & Ouchi, T. (2012) · Cell Death & Disease · doi:10.1038/cddis.2011.134 · Cited by 311 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Likewise, H2AX-Nox1/Rac1 pathway was reported as the possible mechanism for the DNA damage and intracellular ROS signalling for the induction of cell death (57).”
BackgroundInduction of pulmonary fibrosis by cerium oxide nanoparticles
Ma, J. Y., Mercer, R. R., Barger, M., Schwegler-Berry, D., Scabilloni, J., Ma, J. K., & Castranova, V. (2012) · Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.taap.2012.05.005 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Gosens, I., Mathijssen, L. E. A. M., Bokkers, B. G. H., Muijser, H., & Cassee, F. R. (2014) · Nanotoxicology · doi:10.3109/17435390.2013.815814 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schwotzer, D., Ernst, H., Schaudien, D., Kock, H., Pohlmann, G., Dasenbrock, C., & Creutzenberg, O. (2017) · Particle and Fibre Toxicology · doi:10.1186/s12989-017-0204-6 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
“gle and repeated oral administration of CeO2 [49, 50].”
BackgroundCordelli, E., Keller, J., Eleuteri, P., Villani, P., Ma-Hock, L., Schulz, M., Landsiedel, R., & Pacchierotti, F. (2017) · Mutagenesis · doi:10.1093/mutage/gew005 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kumari, M., Kumari, S. I., & Grover, P.
- Affiliations
- Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Grover, P.
- Venue
- Mutagenesis
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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