Waterborne exposure of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) to polymethylmethacrylate nanoplastics causes effects at cellular and molecular levels

Potential Effects of Persistent Organic Contaminants on Marine Biota: A Review on Recent Research

“…The presence of MPs and NPs in the gastrointestinal system of several fish species has been exhibited by a number of researchers, the majority of which seems to agree with the recommendation that the detected MPs are either ingested accidentally (because fishes are habituated to ingest various indigestible particles such as sand, fish scales, and shells of smaller invertebrates) or have been transferred through the food chain from lower to higher trophic levels [7,58]. The findings of the present review revealed that most of the available literature data have focused on the effects of MPs and NPs on freshwater fish species [59][60][61][62][63][64], whereas the corresponding research regarding the impacts on marine fish species are fewer [45,[65][66][67][68][69]. Common bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) [65], Atlantic salmon [65], European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) [66,69], rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) [67], gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) [45,69], and marine fish Dicentrarchus labrax [68] are some of the fish species on which the potentially toxic effects of exposure to several and different types and sizes of MPs and NPs has been scrutinized.…”

“…Overall, the studies regarding the impacts of MPs and NPs on microorganisms at the bottom of the food chain, such as microalgae, rotifers, and polychaetes, have demonstrated particle and species-specific responses [45]. For instance, Venâncio et al (2019) [37] reported that organisms that have the role of primary and secondary consumers as zooplankton members, such as Brachionus plicatilis (rotifers), can be more sensitive to PMMA-NPs (size 40 nm; 96 h; at concentrations 4.7-75.0 mg L −1 ) exposure than organisms that are producers, such as the microalgae Tetraselmis chuii and Nannochloropsis gaditana [37].…”

Micro and Nano Plastics Distribution in Fish as Model Organisms: Histopathology, Blood Response and Bioaccumulation in Different Organs

“…This agrees with Sökmen [41] and his team, hypothesizing that since nanoplastics can pass into red blood cells, as shown by Geiser's in vitro study [42], they can reach the brain through the blood. Indeed, nanoplastic particles have been identified in the brain of fish after waterborne [43] or food-mediated exposure [35], indicating that they are capable of crossing a highly selective permeability barrier as the blood brain one [44]. Mattsson et al [35] demonstrated that, once ingested, 53 and 180 nm sized polystyrene plastics can arrive into the brain of Crucian carp (Carassius carassius).…”

“…Nanoplastics are small hydrophobic particles that can reach the brain by crossing the blood-brain barrier [35,43,51]. Nanoplastic particles have been identified in the brain of fish after waterborne or food-mediated exposure, indicating that they are capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier [44]. Then, in aquatic models, the brain is essential for evaluating the toxic effect of nanoparticles (NPs) [52,53].…”

The Application of Nucleic Acid Probe–Based Fluorescent Sensing and Imaging in Cancer Diagnosis and Therapy

“…PMMA-NPs consist of a fluorescein-modified hydrophobic PMMA core and an external hydrophilic shell functionalized with primary amine groups and quaternary ammonium salts. Interestingly, the PMMA-NP carrier has higher biocompatibility, lower cytotoxicity to healthy cells, higher biological inertness, lower synthesis costs, and higher selectivity, as well as prolonging the drug half-life in the human body compared with classical transfection reagents such as Lipofectamine, which extend the application of PMMA-NPs ( Brandts et al, 2021 ).…”