4.7 Article

Tissue content of thiol-containing amino acids predicts methylmercury in aquatic invertebrates

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 688, 期 -, 页码 567-573

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.225

关键词

Mercury; Thiols; Invertebrates; Lakes; Cysteine; Methylmercury

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Program [429389-2012, 312237-2012]
  2. Canada Research Chairs program [950-230607]
  3. Canada Foundation for Innovation [201843]
  4. Environment and Climate Change Canada [1114181]
  5. Stephen A. Jarislowsky Chair in Environment Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aquatic invertebrates vary in methylmercury (MeHg) levels among systems which has been attributed, in part, to environmental conditions, but may also be linked to differences in their biochemical composition. As MeHg is known to bind to thiol-containing amino acids such as cysteine in proteins of fish, our objective was to determine if these amino acids explain MeHg variability among aquatic invertebrate taxa. Benthic macroinvertebrates from diverse functional feeding groups and bulk zooplankton were collected from six acidic lakes in Kejimkujik National Park. Nova Scotia, Canada, and analyzed for MeHg, cysteine (as cysteic acid), methionine (as methionine sulfone), and nitrogen (relative trophic level, delta N-15) and carbon (carbon source, delta C-13) isotopes. MeHg was significantly and positively related to cysteine or methionine in zooplankton, caddisfly and stonefly tissues (R-2 from 0.24 to 0.57). In addition, methionine or cysteine in combination with delta N-1(5) and/or delta C-13 were better predictors of MeHg levels in stoneflies, mayflies, caddisflies and zooplankton among these lakes (R-adj(2) = 0.25-0.91). Overall, these novel findings suggest that the variability in MeHg of aquatic invertebrates can be explained, in part, by their tissue levels of thiol-containing amino acids. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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