4.7 Article

Microcystin-LR induced developmental toxicity and apoptosis in zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae by activation of ER stress response

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 157, 期 -, 页码 166-173

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.05.038

关键词

Microcystin; Developmental toxicity; Endoplasmic reticulum; Stress; Zebrafish

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31370525, 31302203]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2014PY027, 2662015PY030]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of China [2014CFA031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have demonstrated that cyanobacteria-derived Microcystin-LR (MC-LR) can cause developmental toxicity and trigger apoptosis in zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae, but the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that the mechanism by which MC-LR induces developmental toxicity is through activation of endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress. MC-LR (4.0 mu M) exposure through submersion caused serious developmental toxicity, such as malformation, growth delay and decreased heart rates in zebrafish larvae, which could be inhibited by ER stress blocker, tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA, 20 mu M). Meanwhile, acridine orange (AO) staining showed TUDCA could rescue cell apoptosis in heart area in zebrafish larvae resulted by MC-LR exposure. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (real-time PCR) analysis demonstrated that MC-LR induced activation of ER stress which consequently triggered apoptosis in zebrafish larvae. Protein expression examined by western blot indicated that MC-LR could activate MAPK8/Bcl-2/Bax pathway and caspase-dependent apoptotic pathway in zebrafish larva and the effects were mitigated by inhibition of ER stress. Taken together, the results observed in this study suggested that ER stress plays a critical role in developmental toxicity and apoptosis in zebrafish embryos exposed to MC-LR. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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