Steevens JA, Klaine SJ, Handy RD, Horne N, Sabo-Attwood T, Tsyusko O, Decho A, Fernandes T, Koelmans AA, Metcalfe C, Cornelis G
[
Environ Toxicol Chem,
2012]
Ecotoxicology research is using many methods for engineered nanomaterials (ENMs), but the collective experience from researchers has not been documented. This paper reports the practical issues for working with ENMs and suggests nano-specific modifications to protocols. The review considers generic practical issues, as well as specific issues for aquatic tests, marine grazers, soil organisms, and bioaccumulation studies. Current procedures for cleaning glassware are adequate, but electrodes are problematic. The maintenance of exposure concentration is challenging, but can be achieved with some ENMs. The need to characterize the media during experiments is identified, but rapid analytical methods are not available to do this. The use of sonication and natural/synthetic dispersants are discussed. Nano-specific biological endpoints may be developed for a tiered monitoring scheme to diagnose ENM exposure or effect. A case study of the algal growth test highlights many small deviations in current regulatory test protocols that are allowed (shaking, lighting, mixing methods), but these should be standardized for ENMs. Invertebrate (Daphnia) tests should account for mechanical toxicity of ENMs. Fish tests should consider semistatic exposure to minimize wastewater and animal husbandry. The inclusion of a benthic test is recommended for the base set of ecotoxicity tests with ENMs. The sensitivity of soil tests needs to be increased for ENMs and shortened for logistics reasons; improvements include using Caenorhabditis elegans, aquatic media, and metabolism endpoints in the plant growth tests. The existing bioaccumulation tests are conceptually flawed and require considerable modification, or a new test, to work for ENMs. Overall, most methodologies need some amendments, and recommendations are made to assist researchers.
[
IUBMB Life,
2007]
Most tRNAs share a common secondary structure containing a T arm, a D arm, an anticodon arm and an acceptor stem. However, there are some exceptions. Most nematode mitochondrial tRNAs and some animal mitochondrial tRNAs lack the T arm, which is necessary for binding to canonical elongation factor Tu (EF-Tu). The mitochondria of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans have a unique EF-Tu, named EF-Tu1, whose structure has supplied clues as to how truncated tRNAs can work in translation. EF-Tu1 has a C-terminal extension of about 60 aa that is absent in canonical EF-Tu. Recent data from our laboratory strongly suggests that EF-Tu1 recognizes the D-arm instead of the T arm by a mechanism involving this C-terminal region. Further biochemical analysis of mitochondrial tRNAs and EF-Tu from the distantly related nematode Trichinella spp. and sequence information on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA in arthropods suggest that T-armless tRNAs may have arisen as a result of duplication of the EF-Tu gene. These studies provide valuable insights into the co-evolution of RNA and RNA-binding proteins. IUBMB Life, 59: 68-75, 2007.