4.6 Article

Single and combined exposures of waterborne Cu and Cd induced oxidative stress responses and tissue injury in female rare minnow (Gobiocypris rarus)

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpc.2019.04.013

关键词

Gobiocypris rants; Metal pollution; Oxidative stress; Tissue structure

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [2452016033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Copper (Cu) and cadmium (Cd) are two kinds of abundant toxic metals in aquatic ecosystem. The present study evaluated the effects of waterborne Cu and Cd on oxidative stress responses and histological alterations in female rare minnow (Gobiocypris rarus). Fish were exposed for 7 days to: (i) control (no added Cu or Cd), (ii) waterborne Cu (39.2 mu g L-1) (iii) waterborne Cd (299.6 mu g L-1), and (iv) Cu and Cd in mixture (19.6 and 149.8 mu g L-1 respectively). Antioxidant enzyme activities and gene mRNA abundance in fish tissues (gills, liver, and ovaries) were induced by Cu and Cd exposures, both individually and in mixture, at day 1, but an asynchronous response was observed between most enzyme activities and gene mRNA abundance following 7 days exposure. Biochemical analysis and histological observation indicated that exposure to Cu and Cd, alone and in combination, caused evident damage to lipids and tissue structure in gills, liver and ovaries. Comparing with single Cu or Cd exposure, Cu and Cd co-exposure induced greater increase in the mRNA expression of most antioxidant genes and caused more severe lesions in fish tissues, which suggested that exposure to waterborne Cu and Cd in mixture might increase their individual toxicity. Furthermore, positive relationships between nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor (Nrf2) expression and expression of manganese superoxide dismutase (Mn-SOD) and catalase (CAT) were also observed in the present study, which suggested that Cu or/and Cd induced expression of these antioxidant genes were might through activation of Nrf2.

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

4.6
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