4.7 Article

T-screen and yeast assay for the detection of the thyroid-disrupting activities of cadmium, mercury, and zinc

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 10, 页码 9843-9851

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-016-6095-5

关键词

In vitro bioassay; Toxicmetals; Thyroid receptor; Thyroid-disrupting activity

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41001351]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2012LYB35]
  3. Major Science and Technology Program for Water Pollution Control and Treatment [2014ZX07201-010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, a two-hybrid yeast bioassay and a T-screen were used to screen for the thyroid receptor (TR)-disrupting activity of select metallic compounds (CdCl2, ZnCl2, HgCl2, CuSO4, MnSO4, and MgSO4). The results reveal that none of the tested metallic compounds showed TR-agonistic activity, whereas ZnCl2, HgCl2, and CdCl2 demonstrated TR antagonism. For the yeast assay, the dose-response relationship of these metallic compounds was established, and the concentrations producing 20 % of the maximum effect of ZnCl2, HgCl2, and CdCl2 were 9.1 x 10(-5), 3.2 x 10(-6), and 1.2 x 10(-6) mol/L, respectively. The T-screen also supported the finding that ZnCl2, HgCl2, and CdCl2 decreased the cell proliferation at concentrations ranging from 10(-6) to 10(-4) mol/L. Furthermore, the thyroid-disrupting activity of metallic compounds in environmental water samples collected from the Guanting Reservoir, Beijing, China was evaluated. Solid-phase extraction was used to separate the organic extracts, and a modified two-hybrid yeast bioassay revealed that the metallic compounds in the water samples could affect thyroid hormone-induced signaling by decreasing the binding of the thyroid hormone. The addition of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (30 mg/L) could eliminate the effects. Thus, the cause(s) of the thyroid toxicity in the water samples appeared to be partly related to the metallic compounds.

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