4.3 Article

Toxicity, Physiological, and Ultrastructural Effects of Arsenic and Cadmium on the Extremophilic Microalga Chlamydomonas acidophila

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17051650

关键词

arsenic; acidophiles; cadmium; cytotoxicity; extremophiles; ultrastructure; ROS

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science Innovation and Universities [CGL2015-69758-P, RTI2018-094867-B-I00]
  2. Santander/UCM [PR6/13-18856]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cytotoxicity of cadmium (Cd), arsenate (As(V)), and arsenite (As(III)) on a strain of Chlamydomonas acidophila, isolated from the Rio Tinto, an acidic environment containing high metal(l)oid concentrations, was analyzed. We used a broad array of methods to produce complementary information: cell viability and reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation measures, ultrastructural observations, transmission electron microscopy energy dispersive x-ray microanalysis (TEM-XEDS), and gene expression. This acidophilic microorganism was affected differently by the tested metal/metalloid: It showed high resistance to arsenic while Cd was the most toxic heavy metal, showing an LC50 = 1.94 mu M. Arsenite was almost four-fold more toxic (LC50= 10.91 mM) than arsenate (LC50 = 41.63 mM). Assessment of ROS generation indicated that both arsenic oxidation states generate superoxide anions. Ultrastructural analysis of exposed cells revealed that stigma, chloroplast, nucleus, and mitochondria were the main toxicity targets. Intense vacuolization and accumulation of energy reserves (starch deposits and lipid droplets) were observed after treatments. Electron-dense intracellular nanoparticle-like formation appeared in two cellular locations: inside cytoplasmic vacuoles and entrapped into the capsule, around each cell. The chemical nature (Cd or As) of these intracellular deposits was confirmed by TEM-XEDS. Additionally, they also contained an unexpected high content in phosphorous, which might support an essential role of poly-phosphates in metal resistance.

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

4.3
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