4.7 Review

A review of reproductive toxicity of microcystins

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 301, Issue -, Pages 381-399

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.08.041

Keywords

Microcystin; Reproductive toxicity; Apoptosis; Oxidative stress; Tumor

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundations of China [31322013]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Freshwater Ecology and Biotechnology [2014FBZ02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Animal studies provide strong evidence of positive associations between microcystins (MCs) exposure and reproductive toxicity, representing a threat to human reproductive health and the biodiversity of wild life. This paper reviews current knowledge of the reproductive toxicity of MCs, with regard to mammals, fishes, amphibians, and birds, mostly in males. Toxicity of MCs is primarily governed by the inhibition of protein phosphatases 1 and 2A (PP1 and PP2A) and disturbance of cellular phosphorylation balance. MCs exposure is related to excessive production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and oxidative stress, leading to cytoskeleton disruption, mitochondria dysfunction, endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, and DNA damage. MCs induce cell apoptosis mediated by the mitochondrial and ROS and ER pathways. Through PP1/2A inhibition and oxidative stress, MCs lead to differential expression/activity of transcriptional factors and proteins involved in the pathways of cellular differentiation, proliferation, and tumor promotion. MC-induced DNA damage is also involved in carcinogenicity. Apart from a direct effect on testes and ovaries, MCs indirectly affect sex hormones by damaging the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonad (HPG) axis and liver. Parental exposure to MCs may result in hepatotoxicity and neurotoxicity of offspring. We also summarize the current research gaps which should be addressed by further studies. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available