4.7 Article

GSH and Zinc Supplementation Attenuate Cadmium-Induced Cellular Stress and Stimulation of Choline Uptake in Cultured Neonatal Rat Choroid Plexus Epithelia

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22168857

关键词

choroid plexus; cadmium; Zinc; GSH; choline; transport; cellular stress; oxidative stress

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IOS 1052654]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates that the choroid plexus adapts to cadmium-induced cellular stress by up-regulating glutathione (GSH) synthesis, while zinc may provide cellular protection independently of GSH.
Choroid plexus (CP) sequesters cadmium and other metals, protecting the brain from these neurotoxins. These metals can induce cellular stress and modulate homeostatic functions of CP, such as solute transport. We previously showed in primary cultured neonatal rat CP epithelial cells (CPECs) that cadmium induced cellular stress and stimulated choline uptake at the apical membrane, which interfaces with cerebrospinal fluid in situ. Here, in CPECs, we characterized the roles of glutathione (GSH) and Zinc supplementation in the adaptive stress response to cadmium. Cadmium increased GSH and decreased the reduced GSH-to-oxidized GSH (GSSG) ratio. Heat shock protein-70 (Hsp70), heme oxygenase (HO-1), and metallothionein (Mt-1) were induced along with the catalytic and modifier subunits of glutamate cysteine ligase (GCL), the rate-limiting enzyme in GSH synthesis. Inhibition of GCL by l-buthionine sulfoximine (BSO) enhanced stress protein induction and stimulation of choline uptake by cadmium. Zinc alone did not induce Hsp70, HO-1, or GCL subunits, or modulate choline uptake. Zinc supplementation during cadmium exposure attenuated stress protein induction and stimulation of choline uptake; this effect persisted despite inhibition of GSH synthesis. These data indicated up-regulation of GSH synthesis promotes adaptation to cadmium-induced cellular stress in CP, but Zinc may confer cytoprotection independent of GSH.

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