Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 444

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Molecular and Histological Changes in Zebrafish Gills Exposed to Metallic Nanoparticles

Griffitt, Robert J., Hyndman, Kelly, Denslow, Nancy D., Barber, Davis S.·2009·Toxicological Sciences

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that metallic nanoparticles produce toxicity in aquatic organisms that is due largely to effects of particulates as opposed to release of dissolved ions. The present research examined the interplay of nanoparticle composition and dissolution on response of the zebrafish gill following exposure to toxic (nanocopper or nanosilver) or nontoxic (nano-TiO2) nanometals. Female zebrafish were exposed to 48-h no observable effects concentration of nanocopper and nanosilver or to soluble Cu and Ag that matched the concentration of dissolved metals released during nanoparticle exposure. Both nanocopper and nanosilver exposures increased metal content associated with gill tissue, though silver concentrations were much higher following nanosilver exposures suggesting that intact silver nanoparticles are associated with the gill. Morphological and transcriptional responses of the gills differed among various nanomaterials and between nanoparticulate and soluble species. Nanocopper increased mean gill filament width by three to fourfold between 24 and 48 h, whereas nanosilver did not alter gill filament width at either time point. Global gene expression analysis demonstrates that the exposure to each nanometal or soluble metal produces a distinct gene expression profile at both 24 and 48 h, suggesting that each exposure is producing biological response by a different mechanism. The differences in responses among the exposures indicates that each particle is having a distinct biological effect that does not appear to be driven solely by release of soluble metal ions into the water column. Based on these results, care should be taken when inferring toxicity of nanomaterials from data on a different material.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/toxsci/kfn256

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 444

Metadata

Authors
Griffitt, R. J., Hyndman, K., Denslow, N. D., & Barber, D. S.
Venue
Toxicological Sciences
Published
2008-12-10
Volume
107
Issue
2
Pages
404-415
ISSN
  • 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-6080
OpenAlex
W2121425724
Cited by
444
References
25
FWCI
15.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Molecular and Histological Changes in Zebrafish Gills Exposed to Metallic Nanoparticles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/toxsci/kfn256
The paper
Griffitt, R. J., Hyndman, K., Denslow, N. D., & Barber, D. S. (2009). Comparison of Molecular and Histological Changes in Zebrafish Gills Exposed to Metallic Nanoparticles. Toxicological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfn256

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.