Are Physical Sunscreens Safe for Marine Life? A Study on a Coral–Zooxanthellae Symbiotic System

Limited toxic and ecological studies were focused on physical sunscreen that is considered to have “safer performance”, in which nanosize zinc oxide (nZnO) and nanosize titanium dioxide (nTiO2) generally are added as ultraviolet filters. Herein, the common button coral Zoanthus sp. was newly used to assess the toxic effects and underlying mechanisms of physical sunscreen. Results showed that physical sunscreen induced severe growth inhibition effects and largely compelled the symbiotic zooxanthellae, indicating that their symbiotic systems were threatened and, also, that neural and photosynthesis functions were influenced. Zn2+ toxicity and bioaccumulation were identified as the main toxic mechanisms, and nTiO2 particles released from physical sunscreen also displayed limited bioattachment and toxicity. Oxidative stress, determined by increased reactive oxygen species, superoxide dismutase, and malondialdehyde content, was indicated as another important toxic mechanism. Furthermore, when Zoanthus sp. was restored, the inhibited individual coral could be largely recovered after a short (3 d) exposure time; however, a longer exposure time damaged the coral irretrievably, which revealed the latent environmental risks of physical sunscreen. This study investigated the toxic effect of physical sunscreen on Zoanthus sp. in a relatively comprehensive manner, thus providing new insights into the toxic response of sunscreen on marine organisms

MOESM1 of CBFA2T2 is associated with a cancer stem cell state in renal cell carcinoma

Additional file 1: Figure S1. CBFA2T2 expression is elevated in RCC tissues. (A) Representative immunostaining of CBFA2T2 in normal kidney tissue. (B) Representative immunostaining of CBFA2T2 in ccRCC. (C) CBFA2T2 protein expression in RCC samples was significantly higher than that of normal kidney tissues. **p  < 0.01

MOESM2 of CBFA2T2 is associated with a cancer stem cell state in renal cell carcinoma

Additional file 2: Figure S2. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) analysis. (A) Analysis of TCGA data set showing 0.4% of CBFA2T2—altered in RCC samples