4.6 Article

Acrylamide neurotoxicity on the cerebrum of weaning rats

Journal

NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages 938-943

Publisher

MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS & MEDIA PVT LTD
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.158357

Keywords

nerve regeneration; gamma-aminobutyric acid; glial fibrillary acidic protein; glutamic acid decarboxylase; neurotoxicity; weaning; organ index; cerebrum; cortex; glutamate; neural regeneration

Funding

  1. Medical Scientific Research Foundation of Guangdong Province in China [B2014202]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province in China [2014A030310455]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The mechanism underlying acrylamide-induced neurotoxicity remains controversial. Previous studies have focused on acrylamide-induced toxicity in adult rodents, but neurotoxicity in weaning rats has not been investigated. To explore the neurotoxic effect of acrylamide on the developing brain, weaning rats were gavaged with 0, 5, 15, and 30 mg/kg acrylamide for 4 consecutive weeks. No obvious neurotoxicity was observed in weaning rats in the low-dose acrylamide group (5 mg/kg). However, rats from the moderate-and high-dose acrylamide groups (15 and 30 mg/kg) had an abnormal gait. Furthermore, biochemical tests in these rats demonstrated that glutamate concentration was significantly reduced, and gamma-aminobutyric acid content was significantly increased and was dependent on acrylamide dose. Immunohistochemical staining showed that in the cerebral cortex, gamma-aminobutyric acid, glutamic acid decarboxylase and glial fibrillary acidic protein expression increased remarkably in the moderate-and high-dose acrylamide groups. These results indicate that in weaning rats, acrylamide is positively associated with neurotoxicity in a dose-dependent manner, which may correlate with upregulation of gamma-aminobutyric acid and subsequent neuronal degeneration after the initial acrylamide exposure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available