4.7 Article

Toxicity of lindane induced by oxidative stress and intestinal damage in Caenorhabditis elegans

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 264, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114731

关键词

Caenorhabditis elegans; Lindane; Toxic effects; Intestinal damage; Oxidative stress

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21876059]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFC1801102]
  3. National Environmental Criteria Management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lindane, a lipophilic pollutant, may be toxic to organisms. To explore the toxic effects of lindane and the underlying mechanisms of this toxicity, the animal model Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) was exposed to lindane for 3 d at environmentally relevant concentrations (0.01-100 ng/L) and the physiological, biochemical, and molecular indices were evaluated. Subacute exposure to 10-100 ng/L of lindane caused adverse physiological effects on the development, reproduction, and locomotion behaviors in C. elegans. Exposure to 1-100 ng/L of lindane increased the accumulation of Nile red and blue food dye, which suggested high permeability of the intestine in nematodes. Lindane exposure also significantly influenced the expression of genes related to intestinal development (e.g., mtm-6 and opt-2). Moreover, reactive oxygen species production, lipofuscin accumulation, and expression of oxidation resistance genes (e.g., sod-5 and isp-1) were significantly increased in C. elegans exposed to 10-100 ng/L of lindane, which indicated that lindane exposure induced oxidative stress. According to Pearson correlation analyses, oxidative stress and intestinal damage were significantly correlated with the adverse physiological effects of lindane. Therefore, the adverse effects of lindane may have been induced by intestinal damage and oxidative stress, and mtm-6, opt-2, sod-5, isp-1, and mev-1 might play important roles in the toxicity of lindane. (C) 2020 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