4.6 Article

Avermectin induces the oxidative stress, genotoxicity, and immunological responses in the Chinese Mitten Crab, Eriocheir sinensis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225171

关键词

-

资金

  1. general science research program of Sichuan Province [17ZB0405]
  2. general science research programme of Sichuan Province [18ZB0554]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Avermectin is commonly used in aquaculture systems for pest control in recent decades in China. However, no information is provided for the toxic effect to the important commercial species, Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis. To investigate the aquatic toxicity of avermectin, an acute toxic test was performed in this study. The results showed that the 48 h- and 96 h- LC50 were 1.663 and 0.954 mg/L, respectively. For further research, crabs were exposed to sublethal concentrations of 0.03, 0.06, 0.12, 0.24 and 0.48 mg/L. Levels of antioxidants, including superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) were significantly (P<0.05) decreased with dose- and time- dependent responses, meanwhile the oxidative products including malondialdehyde (MDA), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and protein carbonyl in serum increased significantly (P<0.05) at concentrations of 0.24 and 0.48 mg/L throughout the experiment. A significant (P<0.05) increase of intracellular ROS and decrease of phagocytic activity was observed in high concentration groups, with dose- and time- dependent manners during the exposure. In addition, serious genetic damage was detected, for the significant increase (P<0.05) of both comet ratio and %DNA in tail at each concentration, and micronucleus (MN) frequency at concentrations of 0.12, 0.24 and 0.48 mg/L at 96 h. These results indicated that sublethal concentration exposure of avermectin had a prominent toxic effect on E. sinensis based on the oxidative stress induced by generated ROS, immunological activity inhibition and genotoxicity.

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