Skip to main content
Download PDF

Chronic exposure to the star polycation (SPc) nanocarrier in the larval stage adversely impairs life history traits in Drosophila melanogaster

Journal of Nanobiotechnology volume 20, Article number: 515 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Nanomaterials are widely used as pesticide adjuvants to increase pesticide efficiency and minimize environmental pollution. But it is increasingly recognized that nanocarrier is a double-edged sword, as nanoparticles are emerging as new environmental pollutants. This study aimed to determine the biotoxicity of a widely applied star polycation (SPc) nanocarrier using Drosophila melanogaster, the fruit fly, as an in vivo model.

Results

The lethal concentration 50 (LC50) value of SPc was identified as 2.14 g/L toward third-instar larvae and 26.33 g/L for adults. Chronic exposure to a sub lethal concentration of SPc (1 g/L) in the larval stage showed long-lasting adverse effects on key life history traits. Exposure to SPc at larval stage adversely impacted the lifespan, fertility, climbing ability as well as stresses resistance of emerged adults. RNA-sequencing analysis found that SPc resulted in aberrant expression of genes involved in metabolism, innate immunity, stress response and hormone production in the larvae. Orally administrated SPc nanoparticles were mainly accumulated in intestine cells, while systemic responses were observed.

Conclusions

These findings indicate that SPc nanoparticles are hazardous to fruit flies at multiple levels, which could help us to develop guidelines for further large-scale application.

Background

As adjuvants, nanomaterials with the ability to encapsulate and deliver pesticides are expected to preserve global food production without causing collateral environmental damage [1,2,3,4]. Widely applied in the agricultural system, exposure of wild life and human to nanomaterials are inevitable. Nanoparticles, by their nature, possess the ability to be transported into cells and important intracellular organelles, which may cause significant impacts once taken up by living organisms [2, 5]. Therefore, the safety of newly engineered nanomaterials should be comprehensively examined and evaluated before large-scale application [6, 7].

Various types of dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA) polymers have been developed as nanocarriers for efficient drug and genetic material delivery, but their potential side effects have mostly been examined in cell lines so far [8,9,10,11]. Therefore, in vivo studies are required to dissect the hazards of DMAEMA polymers in living organisms. Our group has designed and synthesized a star polycation (SPc) nanocarrier with polymerized DMAEMA side chains [12]. SPc shows great potential as a nanocarrier for efficient delivery of various genetic materials and pesticides [13,14,15,16,17,18]. We have shown that at working concentrations, SPc showed no acute toxicity for soybean aphid [19], green peach aphid [16, 20] as well as a widely used predatory ladybird [21]. However, the impacts of SPc on animal development and health, especially the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood. Examination of the biotoxicity of SPc would also help to understand the potential hazards of other DMAEMA based nanoparticles.

Drosophila melanogaster, the fruit fly, has become a commonly used animal model to determine the potential harmful effects of different types of nanoparticles [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. The use of Drosophila as model animal benefits from the advantages such as small body size, rapid lifecycle, low cost and clear genomic information [29]. When used in nanotoxicity studies, the fly model can mimic the main entry routes of nanoparticles into animal body through oral administration [30] as well as inhalation [31].

The present study aims to examine the in vivo impact of SPc on Drosophila larvae development and adult health. The effects of chronic exposure to a sub lethal concentration of SPc in the larval stage were examined. Upon exposure to SPc at larval stage, the emerged adults were morphologically normal but their key life story traits were adversely impacted. This observation indicates that SPc nanoparticles have long lasting effects well beyond exposure times. Thus, further attempts were made to understand the mechanism of biotoxicity through transcriptomic analysis and examination of tissue specific responses in the larvae.

Results

Preparation and characterization of SPc nanoparticles

The SPc nanoparticles used in this study were newly synthesized and purified (Fig. 1A). When examined under scanning electron microscope (SEM), SPc particles were found to be spherical in shape (Fig. 1B and Additional file 1: Fig. S1). For the SPc nanoparticles used in the subsequent experiments, the average particle size was 46.84 ± 1.35 nm and average zeta potential was 20.47 ± 0.49 mV (Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preparation and characterization of SPc nanoparticles. A SPc was synthesized by first constructing the star initiator Pt-Br, which was then polymerized with DMAEMA. SPc was purified by dialysis and the final product was obtained as white powder after being freeze-dried. B SEM images of SPc nanoparticles

Full size image
Table 1 Particle size and zeta potential of SPc at the concentration of 0.1 mg/mL
Full size table

The particle size was calculated based on 100 particles from one SEM photo.

Acute toxicity of SPc on fly larvae and adults

When fly larvae were exposed to various concentrations of SPc, lethality was observed at both larval and pupal stages (Fig. 2A). The mortality of third instar larvae was proportional to SPc concentration and the LC50 value was found to be 2.14 g/L (Fig. 2A). Feeding adult flies with SPc also led to acute lethality and the LC50 value was calculated to be 26.33 g/L (Fig. 2B).

Fig. 2
figure 2

SPc causes lethality in fly larvae and adults. Various concentrations of SPc were used to determine the mortality rates over an interval of 24 h. The mortality rate and value of concentration in the log 10 scale were used to construct the toxicity regression equation for both larvae (A) and adult flies (B)

Full size image

Chronic exposure to SPc in larval stage impairs adult life history traits

Whether chronic exposure to SPc in larval stage has long lasting effects was further examined. When first instar larvae were fed with food containing 1 g/L SPc, the emerged adults were morphologically indistinguishable with the control group, but their major life history traits were severely impaired. SPc exposure in larval stage reduced the median survival time from 30.5 days to 14 days in the emerged male adults (Fig. 3A), causing a 40.8% decline of lifespan which was reduced from 30.7 days to 16.7 days (Fig. 3B). After mating with normal male flies, the number of eggs laid per female was reduced from 17.2 to 5.9 after SPc treatment (Fig. 3C). Chronic exposure to SPc in larval stage resulted in 50% decline of climbing ability of emerged adults (Fig. 3D and Additional file: 2 and 3). When challenged with starvation and desiccation, larval stage SPc exposure impaired the survival of adults. Compared with the control group, SPc treatment decreased the resistance to starvation and desiccation by 53.5% (Fig. 3E).

Fig. 3
figure 3

SPc treatment in larval stage results in dampened adult life history traits. A Effect of SPc on adult survival. B Effect of SPc on adult lifespan. C Effect of SPc on egg number. D Effect of SPc on adult climbing ability. E Effect of SPc on adult resistance to starvation and desiccation. The “**” and “***” indicate significant differences according to the independent t test (P < 0.01 and 0.001)

Full size image

SPc induces prominent transcriptional responses in larvae

To better understand the molecular mechanisms underlying the chronic toxicity of SPc nanoparticles, the change of gene expression profile upon SPc exposure in the larvae was investigated by transcriptomic analysis. SPc treatment resulted in 543 genes to be differentially expressed in fly larvae, among which 170 were up-regulated and 373 were down-regulated (Fig. 4A and Additional file 4: Table S1). SPc treatment led to profound effects on the following biological processes: endocytosis, lysosomal degradation, environmental information processing, metabolism and longevity (Fig. 4B). Further analysis revealed that SPc treatment strongly influenced the stress response pathways, Hippo signaling pathway, detoxification, ecdysone biosynthesis and Toll signaling mediated innate immunity pathway (Fig. 4C and Additional file 1: Fig. S2).

Fig. 4
figure 4

SPc induces measurable changes in larval gene expression. A Analysis of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) after feeding fly larvae with SPc nanoparticles shown as a volcano plot. Upregulated genes are represented by red dots and downregulated genes by green dots. B Analysis of biological processes affected by SPc. The X-axis is the number of DEGs, and the terms of biological processes are listed on the right side of each bar. C Heatmaps of the Toll signaling pathway, Hippo signaling pathway and stress response pathway. Highly expressed transcripts are labeled as red, while blue represents transcripts with low expression levels. Gene symbols are listed on the right side

Full size image

The qRT-PCR was used to validate the influence of SPc on mRNA levels of various genes (Fig. 5). The ft, d and ds genes encode essential components of the Hippo signaling pathway, and their mRNA levels were down-regulated by 0.20-fold, 0.14-fold and 0.26-fold, respectively. The apoptosis regulator gene dam was elevated by 7.46-fold when exposed to SPc. The ecdysone oxidase gene Eo was down-regulated by 0.05-fold. Expressions of antioxidant enzyme encoding gene GstD7 was up-regulated by 3.45-fold. Metallothionein family gene MtnE was up-regulated by 1.56-fold. Stress response gene Ets21C was up-regulated by 5.90-fold. The innate immunity related gene IM3 was strongly up-regulated by 141.22-fold. The lysosomal mannosidase gene LManV gene was down-regulated by 0.11-fold.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Fold-change in abundances of transcripts of ft, d, ds, damm, Eo, GstD7, MtnE, Est21C, IM3 and LManV genes in response to SPc nanoparticles. The relative expression levels of target genes were normalized to the abundance of the Rpl32 gene. The “**” and “***” indicate significant differences according to the independent t test (P < 0.01 and 0.001)

Full size image

SPc induces tissue specific responses

Expression of the gstD-GFP reporter [32] and cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) level were examined upon SPc exposure. Feeding fly larvae with 1 g/L SPc led to significant change of gstD-GFP expression patterns in a tissue specific manner. Accumulation of gstD-GFP was found in the salivary gland and intestine, but not in the fat body (Fig. 6). Similar basal level of gstD-GFP expression was observed in the fat body of both control and SPc treated larvae. There was no detectable expression of gstD-GFP in the salivary glands of control larvae, while SPc stimulated the expression of gstD-GFP to a high level. Basal level of gstD-GFP expression was observed in the intestine of control larvae, but SPc treatment resulted in expansion of the expressing region as well as up-regulation of the expression level. Cellular ROS level was found to be elevated in fat body, salivary gland and intestine cells when examined by DHE staining (Fig. 7).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Effect of SPc on gstD-GFP expression in larval tissues. For each group, the fluorescence picture (green) and the merged picture of fluorescence and bright field panels were shown. Scale bar: 250 μm

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Effect of SPc on cellular ROS level in larval tissues. For each group, the fluorescence picture (red, DHE staining) and the merged picture of fluorescence and bright field panels were shown. Scale bars: 25 μm in fat body pictures; 100 μm in salivary gland pictures; 250 μm in intestine pictures

Full size image

The impact of SPc nanoparticles on Toll signaling activity was further examined using the Drs-GFP reporter [33]. SPc nanoparticles were found to stimulate Drs-GFP expression in larvae fat body cells but not in the salivary gland and intestine cells (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Effect of SPc on Toll signaling in larval tissues. For each group, the fluorescence picture (green) and the merged picture of fluorescence and bright field panels were shown. Scale bar: 25 μm in fat body pictures and 250 μm in salivary gland and intestine pictures

Full size image

The tissue specific responses prompted us to examine whether SPc could be transported into different tissues after ingestion. Fluorescent-labelled SPc nanoparticles were synthesized and fed to fly larvae. Examination of SPc distribution in different tissues showed that SPc nanoparticles were mainly restricted in the intestine cells, with no visible traces in the salivary gland nor fat body cells (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9
figure 9

Distribution of SPc nanoparticles in larval tissues. For each group, the fluorescence picture (blue) and the merged picture of fluorescence and bright field panels were shown. Scale bars: 10 μm in fat body pictures; 50 μm in salivary gland pictures and 100 μm in intestine pictures

Full size image

Discussion

Using Drosophila melanogaster as the model organism, we showed that SPc nanoparticles were hazardous at multiple levels. In addition to the acute toxicity towards both fly larvae and adults, chronic exposure to SPc in the larval stage significantly impacted their life history traits. High-throughput RNA-seq analysis and subsequent qRT-PCR experiments demonstrated that SPc exposure could stimulate significant transcriptional changes in fly larvae. Functional classification of these genes would help us to better understand the toxicity of SPc at the molecular level.

Feeding Drosophila larvae with SPc induced up-regulation of genes involved in stress responses, including the heat shock proteins (HSPs). HSPs are molecular chaperons that play vital roles in reducing the harmful impacts when exposed in stressed conditions in nearly all living organisms [34]. Although named as heat shock proteins, HSPs could be induced by various stimulations such as cold shock, exposure to toxic compounds, desiccation, aging, oxidative stress and diseases [34, 35]. Both Stv [36, 37] and DNAJ-1 [38, 39] act as co-chaperone in the HSP chaperone machinery, while the expression of Iris also responds to fluctuation of temperature [40,41,42]. The Ets21C gene encodes another factor that regulates stress tolerance, tissue renewal and longevity [43, 44]. Induction of these stress response genes indicates that SPc nanoparticles might be recognized as hazardous xenobiotics by the fly larvae and could trigger a series of defensive mechanisms such as detoxification and immune response [45].

The GST (Glutathione S-transferases) and cytochrome P450 family of enzymes are well known for their roles of detoxification in insects [46, 47]. Upon ingestion of toxic substances, the expression level of GST and P450 genes are highly up-regulated to meet the needs of converting hazardous substances into less toxic forms [48, 49]. Excessive amounts of heavy metals, especially the non-essential metals are detrimental for organisms [50]. Insects utilize the sulfyhydryl group-containing proteins metallothioneins (Mtns) to bind and sequester free metal ions to reduce the harmful impacts, and the expression of Mtn genes are efficiently induced by heavy metals [51,52,53]. The general induction of GST, P450 and Mtn genes suggest that a strong and nonspecific detoxification response is triggered in fly larvae upon exposure to SPc nanoparticles.

Transcriptomic analysis indicated that expression of the genes encoding immune induced peptides, such as IM1, IM2, IM3, IM4, IM33 and Drs, were up-regulated upon SPc exposure. Both the IM family genes and Drs are direct transcriptional targets of the Toll signaling pathway, which regulates innate immune response to pathogen-associated molecules [54,55,56]. The expression of IM3 gene was up-regulated by 141.22-fold when examined by qRT-PCR, suggesting a strong activation of the Toll signaling. The induction of Drs was further visualized by a GFP reporter gene, which is expressed under the control of the Drs promoter and is able to faithfully reproduce the transcription pattern of the endogenous Drs gene [33]. SPc nanoparticles induced Drs-GFP in fly larval fat body cells but not in salivary gland nor intestine cells, which is consistent with the crucial role of fat body to produce antimicrobial peptides in systemic immune response [57].

SPc inhibited the expression of Eo, which is required for the production and release of a critical endocrine hormone known as ecdysone [58]. As ecdysone governs insect metamorphosis and reproduction [59], SPc may dampen fly development and female fertility through interfering ecdysone production. SPc also impacted the metabolism in fly larvae. LManV belongs to the class II α-mannosidases family which play important roles in the degradation of asparagine-linked carbohydrates of glycoproteins [60]. Deficiency of α-mannosidases causes the lysosomal storage disease [61], thus inhibition of LManV by SPc may lead to similar lysosomal storage defects which could also impair fly development and health. Damm encodes one of the caspase family of cysteine proteases whose overexpression induces cell death [62]. Induction of Damm expression suggests that cell death might be triggered by SPc. SPc treatment disrupted the expression of several components of the Hippo signaling pathway, which plays critical roles in both tissue development and innate immunity [63, 64].

Chronic exposure to SPc in the larval stage impairs adult life history traits, but the exact mechanisms are not fully understood. Upon SPc exposure, fly larvae experienced intense stresses which are known to compromise their overall fitness and impair major life history traits [65]. Prolonged immune activity is deleterious for growth and development [66, 67], which may contribute to the long-term effect of SPc. Metabolic abnormality and the hormonal changes in the larvae are related with impairments of adult lifespan and fecundity [68]. Further studies are required to reveal how SPc induce the long-lasting impacts.

The tissue specific responses upon SPc ingestion were further dissected by in vivo reporter assays. The transgenic gstD-GFP reporter was generated by fusing the regulatory sequences of the GstD1 gene to GFP, and the resulting reporter is efficiently induced by oxidative stressors such as paraquat, arsenic or hydrogen peroxide [32]. The expression of gstD-GFP was induced by SPc in the intestine and salivary gland cells, while DHE staining demonstrated the cellular ROS level were also increased in these tissues. Collectively, these observations suggest that SPc might trigger a systemic oxidative stress. Activation of the immune response was limited to the fat body, as demonstrated by the Toll signaling activity reporter Drs-GFP. When distribution of SPc was tracked, only intestine cells were found to take in visible amounts of SPc nanoparticles. Although we could not rule out the possibility that very low level of SPc nanoparticles was transferred to other organs through the circulation system or by other means, we favor the model that SPc nanoparticles induce systemic responses after entering the intestine cells.

ROS was considered as a major cause of nanoparticle-induced toxicity in organisms [69,70,71,72,73,74]. But previous studies were focusing on the damages caused by ROS intracellularly [75,76,77,78,79,80]. Recently ROS were discovered to control cell differentiation and cellular immune response in a cell-non-autonomous fashion [81, 82]. We hypothesize that upon SPc exposure, ROS generated by the intestine cells serve as the messenger to induce oxidative stress and immune activity in other organs.

Recently, Drosophila has gained popularity as a model to study nanotoxicity [69,70,71,72,73,74, 83, 84]. The chronic toxicity of several types of nanocarriers have been tested in fly. When sub-lethal level of polylactic acid nanoparticles [85], cellulose nanofibrils [86] and lignin nanoparticles [87] were fed to fly larvae, the adult life history traits were weakly impaired (Additional file 5: Table S3). Cadmium oxide and silver nanoparticles caused similar impacts in the fly larvae and adults as SPc (Additional file 5: Table S3), while the underlying mechanisms awaits further exploration.

We have shown that the nanometerization of various pesticides by SPc results in enhanced toxicity against pests in both laboratory experiments and field tests [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 88, 89]. SPc shows great potential as pesticide adjuvant for large-scale application in the crop fields, and our biotoxicity analysis could help to develop guidelines to reduce the environmental and health risks.

Conclusions

Our experiments demonstrated that SPc are detrimental for Drosophila at multiple levels. Chronic exposure to SPc at sublethal level concentration showed long lasting adverse effects on longevity, reproduction and motor activity. Genes and signaling pathways related with these defects were identified and systemic responses were observed. These results provide reference for understanding the hazards of SPc nanocarriers and for developing guidelines for large scale applications in the crop field.

Methods

Synthesis of SPc

SPc was synthesized following a previously described method [12]. Briefly, the star initiator Pt-Br is constructed by adding 2-bromo-2-methylpropionyl bromide (HEOWNS) dropwise into the pentaerythritol (Alfa Aesar) solution in dry tetrahydrofuran and triethylamine (Beijing Chemical Works). The initiator Pt-Br was further polymerized with DMAEMA (Energy Chemical) under a nitrogen atmosphere with the help of tetrahydrofuran, PMDETA (Sigma-Aldrich) and CuBr (Sigma-Aldrich). Dialysis was carried out to purify the crude product and SPc was obtained as white powder after being freeze-dried. A 60 g/L stock of SPc was prepared with double distilled water (ddH2O). To synthesize fluorescent SPc, TPE-pentaerythritol was used instead of pentaerythritol to prepare the TPE-4Br star initiator and the subsequent steps were the same.

Particle size and zeta potential measurement

Samples of SPc were diluted with ddH2O to prepare 0.1 mg/mL solution, which were used for measurement of particle size by scanning electron microscope (JSM-7500F, JEOL Ltd.) and of zeta potential by Zetasizer Nano ZS (Malvern Instruments Ltd., UK). Each assay was repeated 3 times at 25 °C.

Drosophila culture

The Canton-S (Bloomington 64349) Drosophila strain was used to evaluate the toxicity of SPc. The fly stocks were reared with standard fly food and cultured in a constant temperature incubator at 25 °C [88]. The fly food was composed of corn meal, agar, sucrose, glucose, yeast, propionic acid and the anti-fungal agent Tegosept (p-hydroxybenzoic acid, methyl ester, methyl paraben, nipage). The gstD-GFP [32] stock was used to visualize oxidation stress in the larvae. The Drs-GFP (Bloomington 55707) stock was used to visualize the Toll pathway regulated immune activity in the larvae.

Acute toxicity assay

Acute toxicity of SPc was examined by feeding Drosophila larvae with food containing SPc nanoparticles. Fly food were prepared with different concentrations of SPc (6, 3, 1.5, 0.75, 0.375 and 0 g/L) and twenty third instar larvae were transferred into each vial. Adult flies were fed with 1% sucrose solutions containing different concentrations of SPc (30, 24, 12, 9, 6 and 0 g/L), for which purpose cotton wads soaked with sucrose solutions along with twenty newly emerged adult flies were put into each vial. Three replicates were carried out for each SPc concentration in both larvae and adult toxicity experiments. The number of deaths in each vial was recorded after 24 h and the LC50 value of SPc was calculated through probit analysis [90].

Effects of SPc nanoparticles at sub-lethal concentration on D. melanogaster

In order to determine the potential adverse effects of chronical exposure to SPc nanoparticles at sub-lethal concentration, first instar larvae were exposed for 7 days to 1 g/L SPc nanoparticles (equivalent to the value of LC30). The SPc nanoparticles were supplemented in the fly food. The emerged adult flies were transferred onto fresh fly food without SPc nanoparticles, and their lifespan, fecundity, climbing ability and stress resistance were examined. The gene expression changes were also examined in third instar larvae.

Examination of adult lifespan

Lifespan assay was conducted following previously described methods [91, 92]. A total of 10 adult flies were cultured in each vial and 5 vials were examined simultaneously for both control and SPc treatment group. Food was changed every 5 days, and the number of deaths was recorded each day till the death of the last fly. To avoid complications caused by differences between the sexes and ages, one day old males were used in the lifespan assay.

Examination of female fecundity

Virgin female flies were picked from both control and SPc treatment group. Single virgin female fly was crossed with three wild type males for 24 h and the fecundity was measured by counting the number of eggs laid by each female fly. Two days old virgin flies were used for the fecundity assay.

Examination of adult climbing ability

Adult fly climbing ability was examined as a marker for their motor activity [25, 26]. A total of 20 adult flies were put into an empty vial and 5 vials were examined simultaneously for both control and SPc treatment group. The flies were gently tapped to the bottom, and upward movement of flies was videotaped for 30 s. The number of flies that climbed 20 cm height (marked by red line on the vial) in 30 s were counted. Five days old flies were used in the climbing assay.

Examination of adult resistance

Adult resistance to starvation and desiccation was tested by putting ten adults into an empty vial. The number of deaths was recorded after 12 h. Three vials were examined simultaneously for both control and SPc treatment group. Five days old flies were used in the resistance assay.

Transcriptomic analysis for gene expression changes

Total RNAs were isolated from control and SPc nanoparticles exposed third instar larvae using RNA simple Total RNA Kit (Tiangen, Beijing, China). The RNA sequencing libraries were constructed and then sequenced using an Illumina Hiseq platform (Biomics, Beijing, China). Analyzed by the DESeq2 R package, genes with fold change ≥ 2 between the control and SPc treatment group and with false discovery rate < 0.01 were considered to be differentially expressed. The list of differentially expressed genes was provided in Additional file 4: Table S1.

Quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR)

Total RNAs were extracted from control and SPc nanoparticles exposed third instar larvae using TRIeasy (Yeasen Biotech, Shanghai, China). The cDNAs were synthesized by the Hifair First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Yeasen Biotech) and used as templates for PCR experiments using the Perfect Start Green qPCR Super Mix (TransGen Biotech, Beijing, China). qRT-PCR were conducted on an ABI QuantStudio 6 Flex System (Thermo Fisher, USA). The Rpl32 gene was used as internal control for qRT-PCR, and the gene expression level was examined by the ΔΔCt method [88, 92]. The primers used for qRT-PCR in this study are listed in Additional file 6: Table S2.

Tissue and fluorescent imaging

The expression of gstD-GFP and Drs-GFP as well as the distribution of TE-SPc nanoparticles were monitored under a Leica SP8 confocal microscope. The cellular ROS level was examined by DHE staining [93]. Fluorescent photos were captured with Leica SP8 confocal microscope. The laser intensity and exposure time was set at the same value when samples from the control group and SPc treatment group were photographed.

Data analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 19.0 software (SPSS Inc., USA). The data was analyzed using the one-way ANOVA with the Tukey HSD test or independent t-test with the P-value < 0.05 recognized as significant difference. The descriptive statistics are shown as the mean value and standard errors of the mean.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

References

  1. Cao L, Ma D, Zhou Z, Xu C, Gao C, Zhao P, Huang Q. Efficient photocatalytic degradation of herbicide glyphosate in water by magnetically separable and recyclable BiOBr/Fe3O4 nanocomposites under visible light irradiation. Chem Eng J. 2019;368:212–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Xu C, Shan Y, Bilal M, Xu B, Cao L, Huang Q. Copper ions chelated mesoporous silica nanoparticles via dopamine chemistry for controlled pesticide release regulated by coordination bonding. Chem Eng J. 2020;395:125093.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhao M, Zhou HJ, Chen L, Hao L, Chen H, Zhou X. Carboxymethyl chitosan grafted trisiloxane surfactant nanoparticles with pH sensitivity for sustained release of pesticide. Carbohyd Polym 2020;243:116433.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang D, Saleh NB, Byro A, Zepp R, Sahle-Demessie E, Luxton TP, Ho KT, Burgess RM, Flury M, White JC, et al. Nano-enabled pesticides for sustainable agriculture and global food security. Nat Nanotechnol. 2022;17:347–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sukhanova A, Bozrova S, Sokolov P, Berestovoy M, Karaulov A, Nabiev I. Dependence of nanoparticle toxicity on their physical and chemical properties. Nanoscale Res Lett. 2018;13:44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sharifi S, Behzadi S, Laurent S, Forrest ML, Stroeve P, Mahmoudi M. Toxicity of nanomaterials. Chem Soc Rev. 2012;41:2323–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kusiak M, Oleszczuk P, Jośko I. Cross-examination of engineered nanomaterials in crop production: Application and related implications. J Hazard Mater. 2022;424:127374.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lapp CA, Schuster GS. Effects of DMAEMA and 4-methoxyphenol on gingival fibroblast growth, metabolism, and response to interleukin-1. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;60:30–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Abebe W, Maddux WF, Schuster GS, Lewis JB. Vascular responsiveness to dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate and its degradation products. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003;66A:155–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tan JK, Choi JL, Wei H, Schellinger JG, Pun SH. Reducible, dibromomaleimide-linked polymers for gene delivery. Biomater Sci. 2015;3:112–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mielanczyk A, Mrowiec K, Kupczak M, Mielanczyk Ł, Scieglinska D, Gogler-Piglowska A, Michalski M, Gabriel A, Neugebauer D, Skonieczna M. Synthesis and in vitro cytotoxicity evaluation of star-shaped polymethacrylic conjugates with methotrexate or acitretin as potential antipsoriatic prodrugs. Eur J Pharmacol. 2020;866:172804.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Li J, Qian J, Xu Y, Yan S, Shen J, Yin M. A facile-synthesized star polycation constructed as a highly efficient gene vector in pest management. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2019;7:6316–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yan S, Hu Q, Li J, Chao Z, Cai C, Yin M, Du X, Shen J. A star polycation acts as a drug nanocarrier to improve the toxicity and persistence of botanical pesticides. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2019;7:17406–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang X, Zheng K, Cheng W, Li J, Liang X, Shen J, Dou D, Yin M, Yan S. Field application of star polymer-delivered chitosan to amplify plant defense against potato late blight. Chem Eng J. 2021;417:129327.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Yan S, Cheng W, Han Z, Wang D, Yin M, Du X, Shen J. Nanometerization of thiamethoxam by a cationic star polymer nanocarrier efficiently enhances the contact and plant-uptake dependent stomach toxicity against green peach aphids. Pest Manag Sci. 2021;77:1954–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Yan S, Hu Q, Jiang Q, Chen H, Wei J, Yin M, Du X, Shen J. Simple osthole/nanocarrier pesticide efficiently controls both pests and diseases fulfilling the need of green production of strawberry. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2021;13:36350–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Li M, Ma Z, Peng M, Li L, Yin M, Yan S, Shen J. A gene and drug co-delivery application helps to solve the short life disadvantage of RNA drug. Nano Today. 2022;43:101452.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ma Z, Zheng Y, Chao Z, Chen H, Zhang Y, Yin M, Shen J, Yan S. Visualization of the process of a nanocarrier-mediated gene delivery: Stabilization, endocytosis and endosomal escape of genes for intracellular spreading. J Nanobiotechnol. 2022;20:124.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Yan S, Qian J, Cai C, Ma Z, Li J, Yin M, Ren B, Shen J. Spray method application of transdermal dsRNA delivery system for efficient gene silencing and pest control on soybean aphid Aphis glycines. J Pest Sci. 2020;93:449–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ma Z, Zhang Y, Li M, Chao Z, Du X, Yan S, Shen J. A first greenhouse application of bacteria-expressed and nanocarrier-delivered RNA pesticide for Myzus persicae control. J. Pest Sci. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-022-01485-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dong M, Chen D, Che L, Gu N, Yin M, Du X, Shen J, Yan S. Biotoxicity evaluation of a cationic star polymer on a predatory ladybird and cooperative pest control by polymer-delivered pesticides and ladybird. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2022;14:6083–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu X, Vinson D, Abt D, Hurt RH, Rand DM. Differential toxicity of carbon nanomaterials in Drosophila: Larval dietary uptake is benign, but adult exposure causes locomotor impairment and mortality. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43:6357–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Alaraby M, Annangi B, Hernández A, Creus A, Marcos R. A comprehensive study of the harmful effects of ZnO nanoparticles using Drosophila melanogaster as an in vivo model. J Hazard Mater. 2015;296:166–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Demir E, Aksakal S, Turna F, Kaya B, Marcos R. In vivo genotoxic effects of four different nano-sizes forms of silica nanoparticles in Drosophila melanogaster. J Hazard Mater. 2015;283:260–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Anand AS, Prasad DN, Singh SB, Kohli E. Chronic exposure of zinc oxide nanoparticles causes deviant phenotype in Drosophila melanogaster. J Hazard Mater. 2017;327:180–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. El Kholy S, Giesy JP, Al Naggar Y. Consequences of a short-term exposure to a sub lethal concentration of CdO nanoparticles on key life history traits in the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster). J Hazard Mater. 2021;410:124671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Alaraby M, Hernández A, Marcos R. Novel insights into biodegradation, interaction, internalization and impacts of high-aspect-ratio TiO2 nanomaterials: A systematic in vivo study using Drosophila melanogaster. J Hazard Mater. 2021;409:124474.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Paithankar JG, Kushalan S, Nijil S, Hegde S, Kini S, Sharma A. Systematic toxicity assessment of CdTe quantum dots in Drosophila melanogaster. Chemosphere. 2022;295:133836.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ong C, Yung LY, Cai Y, Bay BH, Baeg GH. Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism to study nanotoxicity. Nanotoxicology. 2015;9:396–403.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Pappus SA, Mishra M. A Drosophila model to decipher the toxicity of nanoparticles taken through oral routes. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1048:311–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Posgai R, Ahamed M, Hussain SM, Rowe JJ, Nielsen MG. Inhalation method for delivery of nanoparticles to the Drosophila respiratory system for toxicity testing. Sci Total Environ. 2009;408:439–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sykiotis GP, Bohmann D. Keap1/Nrf2 signaling regulates oxidative stress tolerance and lifespan in Drosophila. Dev Cell. 2008;14:76–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ferrandon D, Jung AC, Criqui M, Lemaitre B, Uttenweiler-Joseph S, Michaut L, Reichhart J, Hoffmann JA. A drosomycin-GFP reporter transgene reveals a local immune response in Drosophila that is not dependent on the Toll pathway. EMBO J. 1998;17:1217–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Rajak P, Roy S. Heat shock proteins and pesticide stress. Heat Shock Proteins. 2018; pp. 27–40.

  35. Jagla T, Dubińska-Magiera M, Poovathumkadavil P, Daczewska M, Jagla K. Developmental expression and functions of the small heat shock proteins in Drosophila. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:3441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Arndt V, Dick N, Tawo R, Dreiseidler M, Wenzel D, Hesse M, Fürst DO, Saftig P, Saint R, Fleischmann BK, et al. Chaperone-assisted selective autophagy is essential for muscle maintenance. Curr Biol. 2010;20:143–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Colinet H, Hoffmann A. Gene and protein expression of Drosophila Starvin during cold stress and recovery from chill coma. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2010;40:425–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Chan HYE, Warrick JM, Gray-Board GL, Paulson HL, Bonini NM. Mechanisms of chaperone suppression of polyglutamine disease: selectivity, synergy and modulation of protein solubility in Drosophila. Hum Mol Genet. 2000;9:2811–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Marchler G, Wu C. Modulation of Drosophila heat shock transcription factor activity by the molecular chaperone DROJ1. EMBO J. 2001;20:499–509.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. MacMillan HA, Knee JM, Dennis AB, Udaka H, Marshall KE, Merritt TJ, Sinclair BJ. Cold acclimation wholly reorganizes the Drosophila melanogaster transcriptome and metabolome. Sci Rep. 2016;6:28999.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Makhnovskii PA, Kuzmin IV, Nefedova LN, Kima AI. Functional analysis of Grp and Iris, the gag and env domesticated errantivirus genes, in the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Mol Biol. 2016;50:379–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Zare A, Johansson AM, Karlsson E, Delhomme N, Stenberg P. The gut microbiome participates in transgenerational inheritance of low-temperature responses in Drosophila melanogaster. FEBS Lett. 2018;592:4078–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Dobson AJ, Boulton-McDonald R, Houchou L, Svermova T, Ren Z, Subrini J, Vazquez-Prada M, Hoti M, Rodriguez-Lopez M, Ibrahim R, et al. Longevity is determined by ETS transcription factors in multiple tissues and diverse species. PLoS Genet. 2019;15:e1008212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mundorf J, Donohoe CD, McClure CD, Southall TD, Uhlirova M. Ets21c governs tissue renewal, stress tolerance, and aging in the Drosophila intestine. Cell Rep. 2019;27:3019–33.e5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Chifiriuc MC, Ratiu AC, Popa M, Ecovoiu AA. Drosophotoxicology: an emerging research area for assessing nanoparticles interaction with living organisms. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17:36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Low WY, Ng HL, Morton CJ, Parker MW, Batterham P, Robin C. Molecular evolution of glutathione S-transferases in the genus Drosophila. Genetics. 2007;177:1363–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Wilson TG. Resistance of Drosophila to toxins. Annu Rev Entomol. 2001;46:545–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Chung H, Sztal T, Pasricha S, Sridhar M, Batterham P, Daborn PJ. Characterization of Drosophila melanogaster cytochrome P450 genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:5731–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Landis G, Shen J, Tower J. Gene expression changes in response to aging compared to heat stress, oxidative stress and ionizing radiation in Drosophila melanogaster. Aging (Albany NY). 2012;4:768–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Fasae KD, Abolaji AO. Interactions and toxicity of non-essential heavy metals (Cd, Pb and Hg): lessons from Drosophila melanogaster. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2022;51:100900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Slobodian MR, Petahtegoose JD, Wallis AL, Levesque DC, Merritt TJS. The Effects of essential and non-essential metal toxicity in the Drosophila melanogaster insect model: a review. Toxics. 2021;9:269.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Ramnarine TJS, Grath S, Parsch J. Natural variation in the transcriptional response of Drosophila melanogaster to oxidative stress. G3 (Bethesda). 2022;12:jkab366.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Wang Y, Tian X, Zhu C, Yu X, Miao Y, Qiao H. Genetics of metallothioneins in Drosophila melanogaster. Chemosphere. 2022;288:132562.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Uttenweiler-Joseph S, Moniatte M, Lagueux M, Van Dorsselaer A, Hoffmann JA, Bulet P. Differential display of peptides induced during the immune response of Drosophila: a matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:11342–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Clemmons AW, Lindsay SA, Wasserman SA. An effector peptide family required for Drosophila Toll-mediated immunity. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11:e1004876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lindsay SA, Lin SJH, Wasserman SA. Short-form Bomanins mediate humoral immunity in Drosophila. J Innate Immun. 2018;10:306–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Yu S, Luo F, Xu Y, Zhang Y, Jin LH. Drosophila innate immunity involves multiple signaling pathways and coordinated communication between different tissues. Front Immunol. 2022;13:905370.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Takeuchi H, Rigden DJ, Ebrahimi B, Turner PC, Rees HH. Regulation of ecdysteroid signalling during Drosophila development: Identification, characterization and modelling of ecdysone oxidase, an enzyme involved in control of ligand concentration. Biochem J. 2005;389:637–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Song J, Zhou S. Post-transcriptional regulation of insect metamorphosis and oogenesis. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2020;77:1893–909.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Nemčovičová I, Sesták S, Rendić D, Plšková M, Mucha J, Wilson IB. Characterisation of class I and II α-mannosidases from Drosophila melanogaster. Glycoconjugate J. 2013;30:899–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ceccarini MR, Codini M, Conte C, Patria F, Cataldi S, Bertelli M, Albi E, Beccari T. Alpha-Mannosidosis: Therapeutic Strategies. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:1500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Harvey NL, Daish T, Mills K, Dorstyn L, Quinn LM, Read SH, Richardson H, Kumar S. Characterization of the Drosophila caspase, DAMM. J Biol Chem. 2001;276:25342–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Liu B, Zheng Y, Yin F, Yu J, Silverman N, Pan D. Toll receptor-mediated Hippo signaling controls innate immunity in Drosophila. Cell. 2016;164:406–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Zheng Y, Pan D. The Hippo signaling pathway in development and disease. Dev Cell. 2019;50:264–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Flatt T. Life-History Evolution and the Genetics of Fitness Components in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 2020;214:3–48.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Aggarwal K, Silverman N. Positive and negative regulation of the Drosophila immune response. BMB Rep. 2008;41:267–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Ng CT, Yu LE, Ong CN, Bay BH, Baeg GH. The use of Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism to study immune-nanotoxicity. Nanotoxicology. 2019;13:429–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Mirth CK, Piper MD. Matching complex dietary landscapes with the signalling pathways that regulate life history traits. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2017;47:9–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Posgai R, Cipolla-McCulloch CB, Murphy KR, Hussain SM, Rowe JJ, Nielsen MG. Differential toxicity of silver and titanium dioxide nanoparticles on Drosophila melanogaster development, reproductive effort, and viability: size, coatings and antioxidants matter. Chemosphere. 2011;85:34–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Carmona ER, Inostroza-Blancheteau C, Rubio L, Marcos R. Genotoxic and oxidative stress potential of nanosized and bulk zinc oxide particles in Drosophila melanogaster. Toxicol Ind Health. 2016;32:1987–2001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Khatun S, Rajak P, Dutta M, Roy S. Sodium fluoride adversely affects ovarian development and reproduction in Drosophila melanogaster. Chemosphere. 2017;186:51–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Alaraby M, Demir E, Domenech J, Velázquez A, Hernandez A, Marcos R. In vivo evaluation of the toxic and genotoxic effects of exposure to cobalt nanoparticles in Drosophila melanogaster. Environ Sci Nano. 2020;7:610–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Demir E. An in vivo study of nanorod, nanosphere, and nanowire forms of titanium dioxide using Drosophila melanogaster: toxicity, cellular uptake, oxidative stress, and DNA damage. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2020;83:456–69.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Mishra M, Panda M. Reactive oxygen species: the root cause of nanoparticle-induced toxicity in Drosophila melanogaster. Free Radic Res. 2021;55:671–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Ahamed M, Posgai R, Gorey TJ, Nielsen M, Hussain SM, Rowe JJ. Silver nanoparticles induced heat shock protein 70, oxidative stress and apoptosis in Drosophila melanogaster. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010;242:263–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Pandey A, Chandra S, Chauhan LK, Narayan G, Chowdhuri DK. Cellular internalization and stress response of ingested amorphous silica nanoparticles in the midgut of Drosophila melanogaster. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013;1830:2256–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Mao BH, Chen ZY, Wang YJ, Yan SJ. Silver nanoparticles have lethal and sublethal adverse effects on development and longevity by inducing ROS-mediated stress responses. Sci Rep. 2018;8:2445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Mandi M, Khatun S, Rajak P, Mazumdar A, Roy S. Potential risk of organophosphate exposure in male reproductive system of a non-target insect model Drosophila melanogaster. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2020;74:103308.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Sarkar A, Mahendran TS, Meenakshisundaram A, Christopher RV, Dan P, Sundararajan V, Jana N, Venkatasubbu D, Sheik Mohideen S. Role of cerium oxide nanoparticles in improving oxidative stress and developmental delays in Drosophila melanogaster as an in vivo model for bisphenol a toxicity. Chemosphere. 2021;284:131363.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Wang Z, Zhang L, Wang X. Molecular toxicity and defense mechanisms induced by silver nanoparticles in Drosophila melanogaster. J Environ Sci (China). 2023;125:616–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Rajak P, Khatun S, Dutta M, Mandi M, Roy S. Chronic exposure to acephate triggers ROS-mediated injuries at organismal and sub-organismal levels of Drosophila melanogaster. Toxicol Res (Camb). 2018;7:874–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Sinenko SA, Starkova TY, Kuzmin AA, Tomilin AN. Physiological signaling functions of reactive oxygen species in stem cells: from flies to man. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:714370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Demir E, Turna F, Vales G, Kaya B, Creus A, Marcos R. In vivo genotoxicity assessment of titanium, zirconium and aluminium nanoparticles, and their microparticulated forms, in Drosophila. Chemosphere. 2013;93:2304–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Anand AS, Gahlot U, Prasad DN, Kohli E. Aluminum oxide nanoparticles mediated toxicity, loss of appendages in progeny of Drosophila melanogaster on chronic exposure. Nanotoxicology. 2019;13:977–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Legaz S, Exposito JY, Lethias C, Viginier B, Terzian C, Verrier B. Evaluation of polylactic acid nanoparticles safety using Drosophila model. Nanotoxicology. 2016;10:1136–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Mishra PK, Ekielski A, Mukherjee S, Sahu S, Chowdhury S, Mishra M, Talegaonkar S, Siddiqui L, Mishra H. Wood-based cellulose nanofibrils: haemocompatibility and impact on the development and behaviour of Drosophila melanogaster. Biomolecules. 2019;9:363.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Siddiqui L, Bag J, Seetha, Mittal D, Leekha A, Mishra H, Mishra M, Verma AK, Mishra PK, Ekielski A, et al. Assessing the potential of lignin nanoparticles as drug carrier: Synthesis, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity studies. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;152:786–802.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Yan S, Yin H, Li N, Chen Y, Ji C, Jiang Q, Du J, Yin M, Shen J, Zhang J. Combination of a nanocarrier delivery system with genetic manipulation further improves pesticide efficiency: A case study with chlorfenapyr. Environ Sci-Nano. 2022;9:2020–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Zhang L, Yan S, Li M, Wang Y, Shi X, Liang P, Yin M, Shen J, Gao X. Nanodelivery system alters an insect growth regulator's action mode: from oral feeding to topical application. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2022;14:35105–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Anet A, Olakkaran S, Kizhakke Purayil A, Hunasanahally Puttaswamygowda G. Bisphenol A induced oxidative stress mediated genotoxicity in Drosophila melanogaster. J Hazard Mater. 2019;370:42–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Sharma A, Mishra M, Shukla AK, Kumar R, Abdin MZ, Chowdhuri DK. Organochlorine pesticide, endosulfan induced cellular and organismal response in Drosophila melanogaster. J Hazard Mater. 2012;221:275–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Li X, Liu J, Wang X. Exploring the multilevel hazards of thiamethoxam using Drosophila melanogaster. J Hazard Mater. 2020;384:121419.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Robinson KM, Janes MS, Pehar M, Monette JS, Ross MF, Hagen M, Murphy MP, Beckman JS. Selective fluorescent imaging of superoxide in vivo using ethidium-based probes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:15038–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Xing Wang, Dr. Wanzhong Ge and Dr. Li Ma for fly stocks. We thank the Core Facility of Drosophila Resource and Technology, Center for Excellence in Molecular Cell Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, for providing fly stocks and reagents.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, No. 31970478 to J.Z, No. 32072497 to S. Y), the National Key R&D Program of China (2021YFC2600404 to S.Y) and NSFC to J.S (No. 32030012).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Biosecurity and MARA Key Laboratory of Surveillance and Management for Plant Quarantine Pests, College of Plant Protection, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China

    Shuo Yan, Na Li, Yuankang Guo, Yao Chen, Jie Shen & Junzheng Zhang

  2. State Key Lab of Chemical Resource Engineering, Beijing Lab of Biomedical Materials, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, China

    Chendong Ji & Meizhen Yin

Authors
  1. Shuo Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Na Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuankang Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chendong Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Meizhen Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jie Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Junzheng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SY: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing. NL: Data curation; Formal analysis; Methodology. YG: Data curation; Formal analysis; Methodology. YC: Data curation; Formal analysis. CJ: Investigation; Methodology. MY: Methodology; Project administration; Supervision. JS: Project administration; Funding acquisition; Supervision. JZ: Conceptualization; Data curation; Funding acquisition; Project administration; Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approvd the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junzheng Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Fig. S1.

SEM images of SPc nanoparticles. SPc nanoparticles are found to be spherical in shape at both concentrations. Fig. S2. Heatmaps of the detoxification genes, lysosome related genes and ecdysone biosynthesis genes. Highly expressed transcripts are labeled as red, while blue represents transcripts with low expression levels. Gene symbols are listed on the right side.

Additional file 2: Mov. S1. Representive video of the climbing ability test using wild type flies.

Additional file 3: Mov. S2. Representive video of the climbing ability test using SPc treated flies.

Additional file 4: Table S1.

List of differentially expressed genes upon SPc treatment.

Additional file 5: Table S3.

Chronic toxicity of nanomaterials as tested in the fruit fly.

Additional file 6: Table S2.

Primers for quantitative real-time PCR.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yan, S., Li, N., Guo, Y. et al. Chronic exposure to the star polycation (SPc) nanocarrier in the larval stage adversely impairs life history traits in Drosophila melanogaster. J Nanobiotechnol 20, 515 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-022-01705-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-022-01705-1

Keywords

Journal of Nanobiotechnology

ISSN: 1477-3155

Contact us