4.5 Article

Effect of methylmercury on midbrain cell proliferation during organogenesis: Potential cross-species differences and implications for risk assessment

Journal

TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 75, Issue 1, Pages 124-133

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfg151

Keywords

methylmercury; cell cycle; parallelogram; interspecies; stereology; midbrain

Categories

Funding

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [R826886/ES09601] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

5'-bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) labeling was employed to explore the effects of methylmercury (MeHg) on cell cycle kinetics in the developing rat midbrain during gestational days (GDs) 11 to 14. Contrary to what has been previously reported in mice, no effects of MeHg on cell cycle kinetics were observed up to embryonic brain concentrations of 3-4 mug/g. The absence of an effect was confirmed using stereology and counts of midbrain cell number. Treatment with colchicine, the positive control, resulted in significant effects on cell cycle kinetics in the developing rat midbrain. The parallelogram method, borrowed from genetic toxicology, was subsequently used to place the data obtained in the present study in the context of previously collected in vitro and in vivo data on MeHg developmental neurotoxicity. This required developing a common dose metric (mug Hg/g cellular material) to allow in vitro and in vivo study comparisons. Evaluation suggested that MeHg's effects on neuronal cell proliferation show a reasonable degree of concordance across mice, rats, and humans, spanning approximately an order of magnitude. Comparisons among the in vivo data suggest that humans are at least or more sensitive than the rodent and that mice may be a slightly better model for MeHg human developmental neurotoxicity than the rat. Such comparisons can provide both a quantitative and a qualitative framework for utilizing both in vivo and in vitro data in human health risk assessment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available