| Title |
Multibiomarker response in the earthworm Eisenia fetida as tool for assessing multi-walled carbon nanotube ecotoxicity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ecotoxicology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10646-016-1626-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Calisi, A. Grimaldi, A. Leomanni, M. G. Lionetto, F. Dondero, T. Schettino |
| Abstract |
Carbon nanotubes have received a great attention in the last years thanks to their remarkable structural, electrical, and chemical properties. Nowadays carbon nanotubes are increasingly found in terrestrial and aquatic environment and potential harmful impacts of these nanoparticles on humans and wildlife are attracting increasing research and public attention. The effects of carbon nanotubes on aquatic organisms have been explored by several authors, but comparatively the information available on the impact of these particles on soil organisms is much less. Earthworms have traditionally been considered to be convenient indicators of land use impact and soil fertility. The aim of this work was to study the integrated response of a suite of biomarkers covering molecular to whole organism endpoints for the assessment of multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNTs) effects on earthworms (Eisenia fetida) exposed to spiked soil. Results showed that cellular and biochemical responses, such as immune cells morphometric alterations and lysosomal membrane destabilization, acetylcholinesterase inhibition and metallothionein tissue concentration changes, showed high sensitivity to MWCNTs exposure. They can improve our understanding and ability to predict chronic toxicity outcomes of MWCNTs exposure such as reproductive alterations. In this context although more investigation is needed to understand the mechanistic pathway relating the biochemical and cellular biomarker analyzed to reproductive alterations, the obtained results give an early contribution to the future development of an adverse outcomes pathways for MWCNTs exposure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 2 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 11 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 18% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2016.
All research outputs
#13,224,317
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Ecotoxicology
#457
of 1,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,691
of 298,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecotoxicology
#5
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,475 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.