4.7 Article

2-Amino-3-Methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline Triggering Liver Damage by Inhibiting Autophagy and Inducing Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress in Zebrafish (Danio rerio)

期刊

TOXINS
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/toxins13110826

关键词

HCAs; IQ; Hepatotoxicity; ERS; Autophagy; Apoptosis

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC1600402]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exposure to IQ in zebrafish resulted in liver cell damage and apoptosis, induced endoplasmic reticulum stress, and inhibited autophagy.
It is important to note that 2-Amino-3-methylimidazole[4,5-f]quinoline (IQ) is one of the most common heterocyclic amines (HCAs), which is a class of mutagenic/carcinogenic harmful compounds mainly found in high-protein thermal processed foods and contaminated environments. However, the pre-carcinogenic toxicity of IQ to the liver and its mechanism are poorly understood, further research is needed. In light of this, we exposed zebrafish to IQ (0, 8, 80, and 800 ng/mL) for 35 days, followed by comprehensive experimental studies. Histopathological and ultrastructural analysis showed that hepatocytes were damaged. TUNEL results showed that IQ induced apoptosis of liver cells, the expression of apoptosis factor gene was significantly increased, and the expression of Bcl-2 protein was significantly decreased. In addition, upregulated expression of the 78-kDa glucose-regulated protein (GRP78) and C/EBP homologous protein (CHOP) and endoplasmic reticulum stress (ERS)-related factors transcription levels were elevated obviously, suggesting that IQ induced ERS. Decreased protein expression of autophagy-related 5 (Atg5)-Atg12, Beclin1, and LC3-II, increased protein expression of p62, and autophagy-related factors transcription levels were significantly decreased, suggesting that IQ inhibited autophagy. Overall, our research showed that the potential harm of IQ to the liver before the occurrence of liver cancer was related to ERS and its mediated autophagy and apoptosis pathways.

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