4.5 Article

A comparative study on the effects of three different metals (Cu, Zn and Cd) at similar toxicity levels in common carp, Cyprinus carpio

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED TOXICOLOGY
卷 41, 期 9, 页码 1400-1413

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jat.4131

关键词

cadmium; copper; fish; ionoregulation; metal pollution; zinc

资金

  1. University of Antwerp Research Council [32252]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effects of waterborne copper, zinc, and cadmium on common carp, revealing different toxicities and impacts on ion levels and oxidative stress in the fish organism.
To improve our understanding of underlying toxic mechanisms, it is important to evaluate differences in effects that a variety of metals exert at concentrations representing the same toxic level to the organism. Therefore, the main goal of the present study was to compare the effects of waterborne copper (Cu(II)), zinc (Zn(II)) and cadmium (Cd (II)) on a freshwater fish, the common carp (Cyprinus carpio), at concentrations being 0%, 25%, 50% and 100% of the 96 h LC50 (the concentration which is lethal to 50% of the population in 96 h). All the exposures were performed for a period of 1 week at 20 degrees C. Our results show a rapid increase in the amount of copper and cadmium accumulated in the gills, while zinc only started to increase by the end of the experiment. All three metal ions increased metallothionein gene expression in both gills and liver. However, clear adverse effects were mainly observed for the Cu exposed group. Cu caused a decrease in Na level in gill tissue; it altered the expression of genes involved in ionoregulation such as Na+/K+-ATPase and H+-ATPase as well as the expression of oxidative stress-related genes, such as catalase, glutathione reductase and glutathione S-transferase. Zinc and cadmium exposure did not alter the ion levels in the gills. In addition, no obvious effect of oxidative stress was observed, except for a transient increase in glutathione reductase at the highest cadmium concentration.

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

4.5
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