Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity / 2020 / Article
Special Issue

Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Aspects of Modulation of Oxidative Stress 2020

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 9132724 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9132724

Afsaneh Nemati, Vahideh Assadollahi, Ilaria Peluso, Abolfazl Abbaszadeh, Mandana Beigi-boroujeni, Zahra Khanipur, Mohammadreza Gholami, "A Stereological Study of the Toxic Effects of Cerium Oxide during Pregnancy on Kidney Tissues in Neonatal NMRI Mice", Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, vol. 2020, Article ID 9132724, 11 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9132724

A Stereological Study of the Toxic Effects of Cerium Oxide during Pregnancy on Kidney Tissues in Neonatal NMRI Mice

Academic Editor: Luciano Saso
Received23 Feb 2020
Revised27 Apr 2020
Accepted02 Jun 2020
Published23 Jun 2020

Abstract

Background. Both antioxidant and prooxidant activities have been previously reported for cerium oxide (CeO2). The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of CeO2 at different doses on changes in kidney tissues and markers in neonatal mice. Methods. We randomly divided 30 pregnant NMRI mice into five groups ( per group)—a control group and four groups treated with intraperitoneal (i.p.) administration of different doses of CeO2 (10, 25, 80, or 250 mg/kg body weight (bw)) on gestation days (GD) 7 and GD14. At the end of the treatment period, we analyzed the kidney tissues and serum samples. The levels of two serum redox markers, malondialdehyde (MDA) and ferric reducing/antioxidant power (FRAP), were determined. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test, and a value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results. The mean total volumes of the renal corpuscle, glomeruli, and Bowman’s capsule membranes significantly increased, and there was a significant decrease in the mean total volume of Bowman’s space in the high-dose CeO2 group compared to that in the control group. No statistically significant differences existed in the serum levels of MDA and FRAP in the treated and control groups. Conclusion. Our results suggest that high doses of CeO2 impair fetal renal development in pregnant mice, which results in kidney damage. Therefore, CeO2 administration during pregnancy could have dose-dependent adverse effects on the developing kidneys in neonates.

1. Introduction

Cerium is the most abundant rare-earth metal and most active element in the lanthanide group. Cerium is a soft, ductile, and malleable metal with a color that ranges from iron-gray (commercial grade) to silver (pure form). Cerium compounds have the highest environmental activity compared to other members of the lanthanide group [1].

Cerium oxide (CeO2) is the most commonly used commercial compound of cerium [2]. Cerium oxide lanthanides are widely used as catalysts, oxygen sensors, in the manufacture of solar/fuel cells, and polishing agents in various fields [36]. The unique properties of CeO2, especially its low toxicity and high reducibility, have increased the use of micro- and nanosized CeO2 in various medical fields and led to significant advances in these fields [1]. The medical applications of CeO2 are due to its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial properties and its high angiogenic potential. Cerium oxide is used to assist with the healing of various tissues such as the bones, skin, cardiac, and nerves. Recently, the transfer of drugs and genes by CeO2 nanoparticles and the use of CeO2 as treatments for cancer and other diseases has received much attention [7, 8].

Cerium, itself, has no properties and is not physiologically important for living organisms; however, soluble Ce3+ salts (sulfate, nitrate, chloride, phosphate, and hydroxide) contain various properties that are of medical importance. Cerium oxide is a pale yellow-white powder with the chemical formula CeO2 [9]. The autoregenerative cycle nature of CeO2 is due to the presence of an enormous number of surface defects and its ability to switch between Ce3+ and Ce4+ oxidation states. The formation of an oxygen vacancy in CeO2 is associated with reduced Ce4+ and Ce3+ oxidation. This property allows Ce to absorb or give off an electron from the active oxygen species, making them inactive and neutral, and indicates a key role in the ratio of the Ce3+/Ce4+ oxide in the antioxidant activity of CeO2 [911]. Cerium oxide is believed to function as a superoxide dismutase (SOD)/catalase mimetic [9, 1215]. In an experiment on mice, the antioxidant properties of CeO2 nanoparticles inhibited active oxygen species and its potential for the treatment of oxidative stress was reported [16]. Oxidative stress is an imbalance between reactive oxygen species (ROS) and antioxidants in the body [17]. Researchers propose that CeO2 could be used to treat diseases associated with oxidative stress and inflammation [9, 10, 18, 19]. This ability of the nanoscale to neutralize ROS from a pool of high concentration polymer ligands suggests that nanoscale activity may not decrease in the physiological environment, even when coated with a protein corona. A study on the distribution of inhaled CeO2 nanoparticles in mice showed that the cells phagocytosed the nanoparticles [20, 21].

Previous studies on the effects of CeO2 in living organisms reported contradictory results. Some researchers reported that CeO2 caused oxidative stress in mitochondria and hepatocellular damage [22], inflammation in tissues such as the kidneys and liver [23], and DNA damage in peripheral blood leukocytes (PBL) and liver cells [24]. Cerium oxide can also cause lung fibrosis [25] and angiogenesis [26].

In contrast, other researchers reported that CeO2 could act as an antioxidant and be used for cancer prevention and treatment [27, 28]. In another study, the optimum concentration (10-3–10-9 M) of CeO2 increased cell division of primary fetal fibroblasts in vitro [29]. The results of a study showed that CeO2 nanoparticles reduced oxidative stress and inflammation in mice treated with diethylnitrosamine [30]. The protective effect of CeO2 nanoparticles in preventing tissue damage and oxidative stress induced by diabetes in pregnant mice has been reported [31]. Existing synthetic protocols have the ability to obtain CeO2 nanoparticles with different physical and chemical properties (shape, size, zeta potential, and cerium valence state). The synthesis method directly affects their biological activity [32]. The impact of these characteristics on toxicity, especially fetal toxicity, has not been elucidated.

The impact of a wide range of cerium nanoparticles stabilized by citrate on the growth of two-cell embryos was investigated. The results showed that the cerium nanoparticle concentrations had no toxic effects on fetal development [33].

Cerium oxide can cross the placenta and make its way to the liver, spleen, and lung tissues of adult, neonatal, and fetal mice, inducing tissue destruction and necrosis [34]. In addition, the results from our previous study have shown that high-dose CeO2 can have a devastating effect on testicular tissue development in neonatal mice [35].

The kidneys play a key role in regulating the body’s homeostasis and excreting waste products [36]. Metanephric development begins in humans during week five of gestation and in mice at embryonic day (E) 10.5 [37]. There is an enhanced chance for exposure to CeO2 because of the increase in its various uses in daily life. Pregnant women are exposed to CeO2 via the skin, inhalation, foods, and medicines.

Congenital anomalies of the kidneys are among the most important anomalies [38]. When pregnant mice are exposed to CeO2, these particles can cross the placenta and accumulate in the fetal organs [2224, 34]. CeO2 may hinder embryonic development and may have possible demographic impacts [34]. Given the importance of kidney development during pregnancy and the postpartum period, the present study is aimed at comparing histological changes in neonatal kidneys after their mothers were exposed to different doses of a CeO2 suspension during the gestational day (GD) 7 and GD14 of pregnancy.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Cerium (IV) oxide (CeO2) powder that had a , assay of 99.9% trace metal basis, and density of 7.13 g/ml at 25°C (lit.) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Corporation (St. Louis, MO, USA). We prepared the different doses of CeO2 in double-distilled (dd) water. Ultrasonic vibration (100 W, 30 kHz) was performed for 15 min before administration.

In this study, the selected doses were based on previous studies and doses lower than the lethal dose; 50% (LD50) were used for the animals [34, 39]. Based on the contradictory results of previous studies, we selected various doses that ranged from low to high to detect dose-dependent effects in the laboratory animals. We performed our experiment based on the characteristics reported by the manufacturer of CeO2 and previous experiments [1, 34, 4042].

The different doses of CeO2 were prepared in double-distilled (dd) water. Ultrasonic vibration (100 W, 30 kHz) was performed for 15 min before administration.

Trichloroacetic acid ACS reagent, ≥99.0% (TCA); 2,4,6-tripyridyl-s-triazine (TPTZ); 2-thiobarbituric (TBA); ferric chloride (FeCl3); sodium acetate; and hydrochloric acid-ACS reagent, 37% (HCl), were also purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Corporation.

2.2. Animals and Experimental Groups

We obtained adult NMRI mice (male : female ratio of 1 : 2) that had an average weight of 25–30 g from Pasteur Institute of Iran (Tehran, Iran). The animals were allowed to acclimate for one week under standard conditions that included a 12 : 12 h light/dark cycle with ad libitum access to food and water. Once acclimated to their new environment, the male and female mice were kept in a cage at a 1 : 2 ratio. The pregnant mice were placed in separate cages. The detection of a vaginal plug was considered to be gestation day (GD) 0. The pregnant mice were randomly divided into five groups ( per group): a control and four treatment groups. Mice in the treatment groups received intraperitoneal (i.p.) injections of different doses of CeO2 (10, 25, 80, or 250 mg/kg body weight (bw)) on GD7 and GD14.

In this experiment, 15-day-old neonates were used for histological evaluation of kidney tissues and serum biochemical parameters. Changes in body weights and kidney tissue in 2- and 6-day-old neonates were evaluated.

2.3. Histological Examinations of the Kidneys

The 15-day-old postpartum (dpp) offspring were weighed and anesthetized by chloroform. After dissection, blood samples were collected from the heart using a 1 cc syringe. The left kidneys from the mice were excised and rinsed with distilled water, weighed, and fixed for one week in a 10% formaldehyde solution. After tissue passage and paraffin block preparation, the paraffin blocks were sectioned into 5 μm sections with a microtome and subsequently stained with Heidenhain’s Azan stain [43]. We randomly selected nine sections from each kidney to evaluate the histological parameters.

2.4. Kidney Volume

We used the Cavalieri method to assess kidney volume [44]. First, we systematically selected 15 random tissue sections from all of the 5 μm sections at the same interval. The predesigned point probe was randomly uniform on the image of each of the sections, and the points encountered with the whole kidney image were counted.

The kidney volume was calculated in all the slices by using the following formula: where is the sum of the total points, “” represents the thickness between selected sections, and “” is the level of the point probe.

Next, we calculated the cortex and medullary volumes. Tissues were chosen by regular, random sampling, and the average of 15 fields of view from each 5 μm section was assessed at 100x magnification by placing the point probe on each field.

2.5. Volumes of the Cortex, Medulla, and Cortex Components

The total number of points that hit the probe with the entire field was ; the whole number of the points that hit the probe in the cortex was ; and the whole number of points that hit the probe in the medulla was .

Volumetric density was calculated using the following formulas for the cortex and medulla:

We separately estimated the volumes of the cortex and medulla by multiplying the volume density of each by the kidney volume in each neonatal mouse.

We estimated the volume of the components of the cortex, proximal tubule (PT), and distal tubule (DT), with the lumen and their epithelium, glomeruli, and interstitial tissue by systematic random sampling. An average of 15 fields of view from each 5 μm slide was assessed by placing a counting frame on each field. The total number of the points that hit the frame with the entire field of view was selected , and the whole number of points that hit each component was shown. The volume density was calculated using the following formula: where “” represents the PT and DT, lumen, epithelium, interstitial tissue, and glomeruli.

Then, using the following formula, we separately calculated the volumes of the PT and DT, lumen, epithelium, interstitial tissue, or glomeruli by multiplying the volume density of each in the cortical volume:

In the above formula, “” represents the PT, DT, lumen, epithelium, interstitial tissue, and glomeruli.

2.6. Volume of Bowman’s Capsule and Space

In order to obtain the volume of the glomeruli components, we first compared the whole number of the points that hit the frame with these components and the whole number of the points that hit the frame with each glomerulus . The volumetric density of the glomerulus was calculated using the following formula: where “” represents each of the components of the glomerulus (Bowman’s capsule and space).

Then, the volume of Bowman’s capsule and space were calculated by multiplying the volume density of each component in the volume of the glomerulus as follows: where “” represented any of the glomerulus components, namely, Bowman’s capsule and space.

2.7. Length of Proximal Tubules (PT) and Distal Tubules (DT)

In order to calculate the length of the PT and DT from the 5 μm slides of kidney tissue at 400x magnification, we used systematic random sampling to select 15 fields of view. The counting probe was randomly placed on each of the microscopic fields of view, and the number of tubules counted within the frame or those that collided with the reception lines was counted. The number of tubules that contacted the banned lines was not counted. Then, the longitudinal densities of the PT and DT were calculated from the following equation: where is the sum of selected tubules, is the desired frame level at the texture scale, and is the sum of the points of contact with the kidney tissue.

2.8. Serum Redox Markers

Blood samples were collected from 15-day-old neonatal hearts to estimate the serum redox markers, malondialdehyde (MDA) and ferric reducing/antioxidant power (FRAP).

2.9. Malondialdehyde (MDA) Levels

Buege and Aust’s procedure was used to evaluate serum MDA levels. In this method, a solution that contained trichloroacetic acid (TCA; 15% g/ml), TBA (0.375%, g/ml), and hydrochloric acid (HCl, 25% normal) was prepared and the sera were combined in a 2 : 1 ratio and placed in a bain-marie for 15 min. The solution was placed in cold water and then centrifuged for 10 min. The absorbance of the solution was read using a spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 532 nm [45, 46].

2.10. Ferric Reducing/Antioxidant Power (FRAP) Assay

The FRAP assay was used to estimate the antioxidants. We combined 0.5 ml of serum with 1.5 ml of the reaction mixture. The degree of plasma regeneration is proportional to the concentration of this complex. At low pH, the reduction of the TPTZ-Fe3+ complex in the form of ferrous (Fe2+) creates a blue complex that has a maximum absorption of 593 nm. The degree of the regenerative capacity of the serum was measured by increasing the concentration of the above complex using a spectrophotometer. The FRAP assay directly evaluates the whole antioxidant power [47].

2.11. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed with SPSS 16 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), ANOVA, and Tukey’s test. values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Histological Evaluation of the Kidney Tissues

In the control group, we observed that the kidney tissues had a normal structure with regular tubules, cylindrical epithelial cells based on the basement membrane, lumen space, and normal glomeruli. In the group that received less than 250 mg/kg bw CeO2, the glomeruli were inflamed, and there was a significant increase in the volumes of the glomeruli and the membrane of the Bowman’s capsule, along with a significant decrease in volume of Bowman’s capsule space compared to the control group (). There were no statistically significant differences in the other groups treated with CeO2 compared to the control group (Figure 1).

3.2. Body and Kidney Weights

There were no statistically significant differences in body and kidney weights in the treatment and control groups (Table 1).


Groupbw (D2)bw (D6)bw (D15)Kidney W (D2)Kidney W (D6)Kidney W (D15)

Controlababaababab
CeO2 (10 mg/kg bw)aba8aaaa
CeO2 (25 mg/kg bw)babaababab
CeO2 (80 mg/kg bw)ababaababb
CeO2 (250 mg/kg bw)bbabbb

bw (D2): 2-day-old newborn body weight; bw (D6): 6-day-old newborn body weight; bw (D15): 15-day-old newborn body weight. Kidney W (D2): 2-day-old newborn kidney weight; Kidney W (D6): 6-day-old newborn kidney; Kidney W (D15): 15-day-old newborn kidney. Values are . The means with different letter codes are significantly different from each other (ANOVA, Tukey’s test, ).
3.3. Volume of the Kidney, Cortex, Medulla, and Cortex Components

A comparison of kidney volumes in the treatment and control groups showed a significant decrease in the group that received the 250 mg/kg bw CeO2 dose () (Table 2).


GroupKidney V (mm3)Cortex V (mm3)Medulla (mm3)

Controlababab
CeO2 (10 mg/kg bw)aaa
CeO2 (25 mg/kg bw)abcabcab
CeO2 (80 mg/kg bw)bcbcab
CeO2 (250 mg/kg bw)ccb

Values are . The means with different letter codes are significantly different from each other (ANOVA, Tukey’s test, and ).

The cortex volume was significantly reduced in the group that received 250 mg/kg bw CeO2 () compared to that in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in the other groups treated with CeO2 compared to that in the control group. We also observed no statistically significant difference in medulla volume in the treatment groups compared to that in the control group.

There were significant increases in volume in the interstitial tissue (), renal corpuscle (), glomerulus (), and Bowman’s capsule () tissues in the 250 mg/kg bw CeO2 group compared with those in the control group. The other treatment groups showed no significant volume changes in these tissues when compared with the control group (Table 3).


GroupInT (mm3)Renal corpuscle (mm3)Glomerulus (mm3)Bowman’s capsule (mm3)Bowman’s space (mm3)

Controlaaaaba
CeO2 (10 mg/kg bw)aaaaa
CeO2 (25 mg/kg bw)aaabaab
CeO2 (80 mg/kg bw)abababbcab
CeO2 (250 mg/kg bw)bbbcb

Values are . The means with different letter codes are significantly different from each other (ANOVA, Tukey’s test, ).

A significant decrease was observed in the volume of Bowman’s space in the 250 mg/kg bw CeO2 () group compared with that in the control group; however, the other treatment groups did not significantly differ with the control group (Table 3).

The volume of the PT and its epithelium () and the PT lumen () decreased significantly in the group that received 250 mg/kg bw CeO2 compared to that in the control group ().

There was no significant difference between the volume of the DT and the epithelium and its lumen in the group that received 250 mg/kg bw of CeO2 compared with that in the control group (Table 4).


GroupPT
(mm3)
PT (E)
(mm3)
PT (L)
(mm3)
DT
(mm3)
DT (E)
(mm3)
DT (L)
(mm3)

Controlababaababb
CeO2 (10 mg/kg bw)aaaaaa
CeO2 (25 mg/kg bw)abcabcabababab
CeO2 (80 mg/kg bw)bcbcabbabb
CeO2 (250 mg/kg bw)ccbbbb

PT: proximal convoluted tubule; DT: distal convoluted tubule; lumen: L; epithelium: E. Values are . The means with different letter codes are significantly different from each other (ANOVA, Tukey’s test, ).
3.4. Lengths of Proximal Tubules (PT) and Distal Tubules (DT)

There was no significant difference between the DT and PT lengths in the treatment groups compared to that in the control group (Table 5).


GroupPT (m)DT (m)

Controlaa
CeO2 (10 mg/kg bw)aa
CeO2 (25 mg/kg bw)aa
CeO2 (80 mg/kg bw)aa
CeO2 (250 mg/kg bw)aa

Values are . The means with different letter codes are significantly different from each other (ANOVA, Tukey’s test, ).
3.5. Biochemical Evaluations

Statistical analysis of blood serum MDA showed no significant difference between treatment groups compared to the control group (Figure 2). In addition, statistical analysis of blood serum total antioxidant capacity (TAC) showed no significant difference between treatment groups compared to the control group (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

In this study, we administered i.p. injections of different doses of a CeO2 microparticle suspension to pregnant mice on GD7 and GD14 and examined their effects on neonatal mice kidney tissues by light microscopy. The selection of the CeO2 micropowder for this experiment was based on previous studies in which the toxic effects of CeO2 microparticles and their faster accumulation in the tissues of living organisms were confirmed [34, 48]. Exposure of pregnant mice to CeO2, according to the administered dose, caused changes in the neonatal kidney tissue.

Determining the average tissue and body weights is an important indicator for assessing the toxic effects of a substance on the body. In this study, body and kidney weight changes in offspring were measured at 2, 6, and 15 dpp. The results indicated that there were no significant differences in body and kidney weights between the experimental and control groups (Table 1).

Previous findings have indicated that CeO2 passes through the placenta [34]. In mice, the development of the metanephros is considered to begin at E10.5–11 and ends at 7–10 days after birth [49, 50]. The kidney, like all other major organs of the body, is susceptible to exposure to a wide range of chemicals during developmental periods. Regulated differentiation and proliferation of mesenchymal cells and urinary epidermal primordial cells cause nephrogenesis in the embryonic period [50]. Kidney development in mice is completed two weeks after birth [51]. Accordingly, we decided to investigate changes in kidney tissue 15 days after birth.

Studies have also shown that CeO2 can accumulate and cause inflammation in tissues such as the lungs, liver, and kidneys [23]. Cerium is capable of switching between the Ce3+ and Ce4+ states, which may aid the antioxidant property of CeO2. On the other hand, another investigation has shown that CeO2 causes ROS formation, inflammation, and DNA loss [19]. The result of one study indicated that CeO2 increased ROS formation and, consequently, induced oxidative damage in mitochondria [22].

Increased CeO2-induced ROS levels may be the cause of observed cellular damage and apoptosis. ROS production and oxidative stress might be due to the catalytic properties of CeO2, impaired mitochondrial function, or a combination of both mechanisms [24, 42].

ROS is capable of reacting with proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids, leading to lipid oxidation in biological membranes and the effects of enzymatic processes such as ion pump activity and DNA damage, thereby inhibiting transcription, repair, and apoptosis [52, 53]. As a result, lipid peroxidation destroys unsaturated fatty acids in the membranes [54]. This can be one reason for the decrease in cell volume and, ultimately, the decrease in kidney volume in the group that received 250 mg/kg bw CeO2 compared to that in the control group (Table 2).

Increased glomeruli volume, as representative of the renal and functional units of the kidney, can compensate for lost glomeruli function, adapt to new conditions, and remove toxins from the body [55, 56]. Glomeruli undergo hyperfiltration to control the conditions and maintain filtration, resulting in an increase in glomerular volume [57].

Oxidative stress contributes to kidney damage through several mechanisms. This primarily occurs through increased expression of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene in podocytes, endothelial cells, and renal mesangial cells that increase glomerular permeability and protein excretion through urine [58]. Growth factors increase the expression of collagen types I, III, IV, V, and VI, and the laminin and fibronectin proteins, which increases the extracellular matrix and thickening of the glomerular basement membrane [58, 59].

It has been shown that oxygen free radicals play a major role in inflammation in kidney interstitial tissue [60, 61]. Therefore, an increase in interstitial tissue volume in the group that received CeO2 at a dose of 250 mg/kg bw compared to that in the control group (Table 3) might indicate inflammation caused by CeO2.

In the present study, the lumen space of the PT in the group that received 250 mg/kg bw CeO2 was decreased compared to that in the control group (Table 4). This could be due to the destructive dose-dependent effect of CeO2 on tubules and the presence of necrosis, an apoptotic margin of the PT epithelial cells, and swelling of the epithelial cells of the wall of the tubule. It can be concluded that the swelling of PT wall cells reduces the lumen spaces of tubules [23].

The data of this study showed no statistically significant difference between serum MDA and FRAP levels in the treatment groups compared with the control group (Figure 3). Oxidative stress is due to reduced body resistance to oxidants and lower antioxidant levels in the blood. [22, 62]. According to other studies, antioxidant capacity in vivo depends on many factors such as environmental conditions (diet, etc.) [63, 64].

Studies of CeO2 in different animals showed that the level of CeO2 toxicity depended on the duration of exposure, tissue environment, and type of cell [19, 65].

Previous research has suggested that the effect and toxicity of CeO2 are closely related to the types of tissues and cells, as well as the type of animal and the duration of exposure [6668].

Studies of the dose-dependent relationship of CeO2 effects on living organisms are complex. In one study, ICR mice were treated by oral gavage with one of three doses (10, 20, or 40 mg/kg bw/day) for six weeks. The accumulation of Ce particles in the nuclei of liver cells and mitochondria had a direct relationship to the increased dose [22]. The inflammatory effects of CeO2 nanoparticles were studied at different doses (2000, 3000, and 5000 mg/kg bw) administered daily for 14 days in CD-1 mice. The results did not show any relationship between the concentration used and toxic effects [23].

In the present study, animals exposed to the highest doses of CeO2 (250 mg/kg bw) showed significantly different histological parameters from their control counterparts. Animals exposed to the lowest doses (10, 25, and 80 mg/kg bw) did not show significant differences in histological parameters compared to the control group. Studies on the effect of CeO2 on living organisms in vivo and in vitro confirm our findings. Previous studies have shown that low-dose CeO2 can be used to treat cancer and eye diseases and is a powerful antioxidant [69, 70]. Therefore, according to review data, low-dose CeO2 may have beneficial and possibly protective effects.

According to histological data, the high dose of CeO2 in this experiment (250 mg/kg bw) was not tolerable for the animals. This dose could lead to toxic effects and oxidative stress, as well as disruption in the development of kidney tissues in mice. The present study results indicated that the dose of CeO2 could determine the presence of positive and negative effects from its various applications. However, additional research should be conducted to confirm these findings.

5. Conclusion

We observed significant increases in the mean total volume of the kidney, cortex, renal corpuscle, glomerulus, and membrane of Bowman’s capsule and a significant decrease in the mean total volume of Bowman’s space in the group that received 250 mg/kg bw of CeO2 compared to that in the control group. Our data showed no statistically significant differences between serum MDA and TAC levels in the treatment and control groups. According to our experiment, the efficacy of CeO2 on kidney development in neonatal mice was dose dependent. More studies should be conducted to investigate CeO2-induced renal damage in offspring exposed to CeO2 in utero.

Abbreviation

Bw:Body weight
Ce:Cerium
CeO2:Cerium (IV) oxide
CTGF:Connective tissue growth factor
DD:Double distilled
DPP:Days postpartum
D2:2-day-old infant
D6:6-day-old infant
DT:Distal tubules
°C:Degree centigrade
Fig:Figure
g:Gram
GD:Gestational day
G:Glomerulus
HCL:Hydrochloric acid
H:Hour
i.p.:Intraperitoneal
μL:Microliter
MDA:Malondialdehyde concentration
μm:Micrometer
min:Minute
mm3:Cubic millimeters
mg/kg bw:Milligrams per kilogram of body weight
ml:Milliliter
Nm:Nanometer
Nmol:Nanomolar
PBL:Peripheral blood leukocytes
PT:Proximal tubules
PDGF:Platelet-derived growth factor
KCL:Potassium chloride
LDH:Lactate dehydrogenase
REEs:Rare earth elements
TAC:Total antioxidant capacity
TCA:Trichloroacetic acid
TPTZ:2,4,6-Tripyridyl-s-triazine
TBA:Thiobarbituric acid
TGF-1:Transforming growth factor-1
VEGF:Vascular endothelial growth factor
V:Volume
W:Weight.

Data Availability

No data were used to support this study.

Ethical Approval

All stages of this experiment are in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran (Approval ID: IR.KUMS.REC.1398.874).

Conflicts of Interest

There is no conflict of interest related to this research.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Razi Herbal Medicines Research Center, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences and Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.

References

  1. S. Scirè and L. Palmisano, Cerium and cerium oxide: a brief introduction, in Cerium Oxide (CeO₂): Synthesis, Properties and Applications, Elsevier, 2020.
  2. M. Gehlhaus, M. Osier, F. Llados et al., “Toxicological review of cerium oxide and cerium compounds (CAS No. 1306-38-3) in support of summary information on the integrated risk information system (IRIS),” Tech. Rep., US Environmental Protection Agency, 2009, http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/1018tr.pdf. View at: Google Scholar
  3. F. R. Cassee, E. C. van Balen, C. Singh et al., “Exposure, health and ecological effects review of engineered nanoscale cerium and cerium oxide associated with its use as a fuel additive,” Critical Reviews in Toxicology, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 213–229, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. Z. Zhang, P. Gao, Y. Qiu, G. Liu, Y. Feng, and M. Wiesner, “Transport of cerium oxide nanoparticles in saturated silica media: influences of operational parameters and aqueous chemical conditions,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, article 34135, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. S. Rajeshkumar and P. Naik, “Synthesis and biomedical applications of cerium oxide nanoparticles–a review,” Biotechnology Reports, vol. 17, pp. 1–5, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. F. E. Adzo, Cerium levels in fine and coarse airborne particulate matter in El Paso, Texas-a geospatial and temporal Investigation, The University of Texas at El Paso, 2018.
  7. S. Kargozar, F. Baino, S. J. Hoseini et al., “Biomedical applications of nanoceria: new roles for an old player,” Nanomedicine, vol. 13, no. 23, pp. 3051–3069, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. J. Kailashiya and D. Dash, “Nanoceria and its biomedical relevance,” Annals of the National Academy of Medical Sciences (India), vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 014–017, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. B. Nelson, M. Johnson, M. Walker, K. Riley, and C. Sims, “Antioxidant cerium oxide nanoparticles in biology and medicine,” Antioxidants, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 15, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. E.-J. Park, W. S. Cho, J. Jeong et al., “Induction of inflammatory responses in mice treated with cerium oxide nanoparticles by intratracheal instillation,” Journal of Health Science, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 387–396, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. C. Li, X. Shi, Q. Shen, C. Guo, Z. Hou, and J. Zhang, “Hot topics and challenges of regenerative nanoceria in application of antioxidant therapy,” Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2018, Article ID 4857461, 12 pages, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. A. Dhall and W. Self, “Cerium oxide nanoparticles: a brief review of their synthesis methods and biomedical applications,” Antioxidants, vol. 7, no. 8, p. 97, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. E. G. Heckert, A. S. Karakoti, S. Seal, and W. T. Self, “The role of cerium redox state in the SOD mimetic activity of nanoceria,” Biomaterials, vol. 29, no. 18, pp. 2705–2709, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. V. Baldim, F. Bedioui, N. Mignet, I. Margaill, and J. F. Berret, “The enzyme-like catalytic activity of cerium oxide nanoparticles and its dependency on Ce 3+ surface area concentration,” Nanoscale, vol. 10, no. 15, pp. 6971–6980, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. A. Y. Estevez, B. Stadler, and J. S. Erlichman, “In-vitro analysis of catalase-, oxidase-and SOD-mimetic activity of commercially available and custom-synthesized cerium oxide nanoparticles and assessment of neuroprotective effects in a hippocampal brain slice model of ischemia,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 31, article 693.5, 1_supplement, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  16. S. M. Hirst, A. Karakoti, S. Singh et al., “Bio-distribution and in vivo antioxidant effects of cerium oxide nanoparticles in mice,” Environmental Toxicology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 107–118, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. E. Birben, U. M. Sahiner, C. Sackesen, S. Erzurum, and O. Kalayci, “Oxidative stress and antioxidant defense,” World Allergy Organization Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 9–19, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. A. Ramesh, N. N. Ratla, R. Indukuri, K. Venkatesh, and S. T. Rao, “Acute and sub-acute oral toxicity assessment of the cerium oxide nanoparticles in Wistar rats,” International Journal of Phytopharmacology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 46–50, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  19. S. N. Rogers, Toxicological effects of cerium oxide nanoparticle aggregates on Caenorhabditis elegans, Marshall University, 2013.
  20. D. Li, M. Morishita, J. G. Wagner et al., “In vivo biodistribution and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of inhaled fresh and aged cerium oxide nanoparticles in rats,” Particle and Fibre Toxicology, vol. 13, no. 1, article 45, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. C. Portioli, D. Benati, Y. Pii et al., “Short-term biodistribution of cerium oxide nanoparticles in mice: focus on brain parenchyma,” Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Letters, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 1174–1181, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. P. Huang, J. Li, S. Zhang et al., “Effects of lanthanum, cerium, and neodymium on the nuclei and mitochondria of hepatocytes: accumulation and oxidative damage,” Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 25–32, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. A. Poma, A. M. Ragnelli, J. de Lapuente et al., “In vivo inflammatory effects of ceria nanoparticles on CD-1 mouse: evaluation by hematological, histological, and TEM analysis,” Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2014, Article ID 361419, 14 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. Kumari, S. I. Kumari, S. S. K. Kamal, and P. Grover, “Genotoxicity assessment of cerium oxide nanoparticles in female Wistar rats after acute oral exposure,” Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, vol. 775-776, pp. 7–19, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. J. Y. Ma, R. R. Mercer, M. Barger et al., “Induction of pulmonary fibrosis by cerium oxide nanoparticles,” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, vol. 262, no. 3, pp. 255–264, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. S. Das, S. Singh, J. M. Dowding et al., “The induction of angiogenesis by cerium oxide nanoparticles through the modulation of oxygen in intracellular environments,” Biomaterials, vol. 33, no. 31, pp. 7746–7755, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. F. Corsi, F. Caputo, E. Traversa, and L. Ghibelli, “Not only redox: the multifaceted activity of cerium oxide nanoparticles in cancer prevention and therapy,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 8, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. J. Das, Y. J. Choi, J. W. Han, A. M. M. T. Reza, and J. H. Kim, “Nanoceria-mediated delivery of doxorubicin enhances the anti-tumour efficiency in ovarian cancer cells via apoptosis,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 9513, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. A. L. Popov, N. R. Popova, I. I. Selezneva, A. Y. Akkizov, and V. K. Ivanov, “Cerium oxide nanoparticles stimulate proliferation of primary mouse embryonic fibroblasts in vitro,” Materials Science and Engineering: C, vol. 68, pp. 406–413, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. O. A. Adebayo, O. Akinloye, and O. A. Adaramoye, “Cerium oxide nanoparticles attenuate oxidative stress and inflammation in the liver of diethylnitrosamine-treated mice,” Biological Trace Element Research, vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 214–225, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. Z. Vafaei-Pour, M. Shokrzadeh, M. Jahani, and F. Shaki, “Embryo-protective effects of cerium oxide nanoparticles against gestational diabetes in mice,” Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research: IJPR, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 964–975, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  32. M. Nyoka, Y. E. Choonara, P. Kumar, P. P. D. Kondiah, and V. Pillay, “Synthesis of cerium oxide nanoparticles using various methods: implications for biomedical applications,” Nanomaterials, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 242, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. A. S. Chernov, D. A. Reshetnikov, A. L. Popov, N. R. Popova, I. V. Savintseva, and V. K. Ivanov, “Cerium oxide nanoparticles are nontoxic for mouse embryogenesis In Vitro and In Vivo,” Nano Hybrids and Composites, vol. 13, pp. 248–254, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. M. Kawagoe, K. Ishikawa, S. C. Wang et al., “Acute effects on the lung and the liver of oral administration of cerium chloride on adult, neonatal and fetal mice,” Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 59–65, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. A. Nemati, A. Farhadi, C. Jalili, and M. Gholami, “The effect of cerium oxide during pregnancy on the development of the testicular tissue of newborn NMRI mice,” Biological Trace Element Research, vol. 195, no. 1, pp. 196–204, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. A. J. Davidson, “Mouse kidney development,” African Scientist, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 171–204, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  37. K. A. Walker and J. F. Bertram, “Kidney development: core curriculum 2011,” American Journal of Kidney Diseases, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 948–958, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. S. Rosenblum, A. Pal, and K. Reidy, “Renal development in the fetus and premature infant,” Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 58–66, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. C. H. Baker, “Harnessing cerium oxide nanoparticles to protect normal tissue from radiation damage,” Translational Cancer Research, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 343–358, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  40. K. M. Dunnick, R. Pillai, K. L. Pisane, A. B. Stefaniak, E. M. Sabolsky, and S. S. Leonard, “The effect of cerium oxide nanoparticle valence state on reactive oxygen species and toxicity,” Biological Trace Element Research, vol. 166, no. 1, pp. 96–107, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. G. Cepriá, W. R. Córdova, O. Céspedes et al., “Physical and chemical characterization of cerium (IV) oxide nanoparticles,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, vol. 408, no. 24, pp. 6589–6598, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. R. A. Yokel, T. C. Au, R. MacPhail et al., “Distribution, elimination, and biopersistence to 90 days of a systemically introduced 30 nm ceria-engineered nanomaterial in rats,” Toxicological Sciences, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 256–268, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. S. Karbalay-Doust, A. Noorafshan, and S.-M. Pourshahid, “Taxol and taurine protect the renal tissue of rats after unilateral ureteral obstruction: a stereological survey,” Korean Journal of Urology, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 360–367, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. V. Howard and M. Reed, Unbiased stereology: three-dimensional measurement in microscopy, Garland Science, 2004.
  45. J. A. Buege and S. D. Aust, “[30] Microsomal lipid peroxidation,” in Methods in enzymology, pp. 302–310, Elsevier, 1978. View at: Google Scholar
  46. H. Esterbauer and K. H. Cheeseman, “[42] Determination of aldehydic lipid peroxidation products: malonaldehyde and 4-hydroxynonenal,” in Methods in enzymology, pp. 407–421, Elsevier, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  47. I. F. F. Benzie and J. J. Strain, “The Ferric Reducing Ability of Plasma (FRAP) as a Measure of "Antioxidant Power": The FRAP Assay,” Analytical Biochemistry, vol. 239, no. 1, pp. 70–76, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. I. Gosens, L. E. A. M. Mathijssen, B. G. H. Bokkers, H. Muijser, and F. R. Cassee, “Comparative hazard identification of nano- and micro-sized cerium oxide particles based on 28-day inhalation studies in rats,” Nanotoxicology, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 643–653, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. M. Krause, A. Rak-Raszewska, I. Pietilä, S. Quaggin, and S. Vainio, “Signaling during kidney development,” Cell, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 112–132, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. P. Nuñez, T. Fernandez, M. García-Arévalo et al., “Effects of bisphenol A treatment during pregnancy on kidney development in mice: a stereological and histopathological study,” Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 208–214, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. S. L. Clark Jr., “Cellular differentiation in the kidneys of newborn mice studied with the electron microscope,” The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 349–362, 1957. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. B. Seyedalipour, N. Barimani, A. A. D. Jooybari, S. M. Hosseini, and M. Oshrieh, “Histopathological evaluation of kidney and heart tissues after exposure to copper oxide nanoparticles in Mus musculus,” Journal of Babol University of Medical Sciences, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 44–50, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  53. A. Hasanvand, A. Abbaszadeh, S. Darabi, A. Nazari, M. Gholami, and A. Kharazmkia, “Evaluation of selenium on kidney function following ischemic injury in rats; protective effects and antioxidant activity,” Journal of Renal Injury Prevention, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 93–98, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. S. V. Shah, R. Baliga, M. Rajapurkar, and V. A. Fonseca, “Oxidants in chronic kidney disease,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 16–28, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. I. J. Murawski, R. W. Maina, and I. R. Gupta, “The relationship between nephron number, kidney size and body weight in two inbred mouse strains,” Organogenesis, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 189–194, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. L. Xie, G. Koukos, K. Barck et al., “Micro-CT imaging and structural analysis of glomeruli in a model of Adriamycin-induced nephropathy,” American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology, vol. 316, no. 1, pp. F76–F89, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. G. Pazvant, B. Sahin, K. O. Kahvecioglu, H. Gunes, N. Gezer, and D. Bacinoglu, “The volume fraction method for the evaluation of kidney: a stereological study,” Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 233–239, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. S. Karam Sichani, N. Naghsh, and N. Razm, “Effects of alcoholic extract of Peganumharmala L. on malondialdehyde concentration and catalase and glutathione peroxidase activity in mice treated with nanosilver particles,” Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, vol. 22, no. 95, pp. 10–17, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  59. S. Rana, Protective effect of ascorbic acid against oxidative stress induced by inorganic arsenic in liver and kidney of rat, 2007.
  60. B. B. Ratliff, W. Abdulmahdi, R. Pawar, and M. S. Wolin, “Oxidant mechanisms in renal injury and disease,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 119–146, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. L. V. Stebounova, A. Adamcakova-Dodd, J. Kim et al., “Nanosilver induces minimal lung toxicity or inflammation in a subacute murine inhalation model,” Particle and Fibre Toxicology, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 5, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. A. Ghiselli, M. Serafini, F. Natella, and C. Scaccini, “Total antioxidant capacity as a tool to assess redox status: critical view and experimental data,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 1106–1114, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. O. Erel, “A novel automated method to measure total antioxidant response against potent free radical reactions,” Clinical Biochemistry, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 112–119, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. A. Floegel, D. O. Kim, S. J. Chung, S. I. Koo, and O. K. Chun, “Comparison of ABTS/DPPH assays to measure antioxidant capacity in popular antioxidant-rich US foods,” Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1043–1048, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. A. Ranjbar, H. Ghasemi, A. Abedian, and N. Kheiripour, “Cerium oxide nanoparticle modulates hepatic damage, inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers in a dose-dependent manner: an in vivo study of rat liver,” Nanomedicine Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 245–250, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  66. J. Chen, H. J. Xiao, T. Qi, D. L. Chen, H. M. Long, and S. H. Liu, “Rare earths exposure and male infertility: the injury mechanism study of rare earths on male mice and human sperm,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 2076–2086, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. M. A. E. Hegazy, H. M. Maklad, D. A. Abd Elmonsif et al., “The possible role of cerium oxide (CeO2) nanoparticles in prevention of neurobehavioral and neurochemical changes in 6-hydroxydopamine-induced parkinsonian disease,” Alexandria Journal of Medicine, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 351–360, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. O. A. Adua, I. W. Akinmuyisitana, and F. A. Gbore, “Growth performance and blood profile of female rabbits fed dietary cerium oxide,” Journal of Bio-Science, vol. 21, pp. 69–75, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. X. Cai, S. Seal, and J. McGinnis, “Non-toxic retention of nanoceria in murine eyes,” Molecular Vision, vol. 22, pp. 1176–1187, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  70. M. S. Wason and J. Zhao, “Cerium oxide nanoparticles: potential applications for cancer and other diseases,” American Journal of Translational Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 126–131, 2013. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Afsaneh Nemati et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views207
Downloads107
Citations

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.