4.5 Article

Oxidative Macromolecular Alterations in the Rat Central Nervous System in Response to Experimentally Co-Induced Chlorpyrifos and Cold Stress: A Comparative Assessment in Aging Rats

期刊

NEUROCHEMICAL RESEARCH
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 335-348

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11064-011-0617-9

关键词

Interactive toxicity; Chlorpyrifos; Cold stress; Macromolecular changes

资金

  1. University Grant Commission (UGC), south western regional office, Bangalore, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reactive oxygen species are generated as a result of a number of physiological and pathological processes which can promote multiple forms of oxidative damage including protein oxidation, and thereby influence the function of a diverse array of cellular processes. In our previous study we have reported that co-exposure to chlorpyrifos and cold stress in aging rats markedly influence the toxic outcome as a result of oxidative stress. In the present study, key neurochemical/enzymes were measured in order to evaluate the macromolecular alterations in response to experimentally co-induced chlorpyrifos and cold stress (15 and 20 degrees C) either concurrently or individually in vivo for 48 h in discrete regions of brain and spinal cord of different age group rats. CPF and cold stress exposure either individually or in combination substantially increased the activity/levels of protein carbonyls, AST, ALT and decreased protein thiols, DNA, RNA and total proteins in discrete regions of CNS. Overall, the effects of co-exposure were appreciably different from either of the exposures. However, synergistic-action of CPF and cold stress at 15 degrees C showed higher dyshomeostasis in comparison with CPF and cold stress alone and together at 20 degrees C indicating the extent of oxidative macromolecular damage in discrete regions of brain and spinal cord. Furthermore, the present study demonstrates that macromolecular oxidative damage is highly pronounced in neonates and juveniles than the young adults.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据