4.7 Article

Tissue-variation of iron stable isotopes in marine fish coupled with speciation analysis using X-ray absorption fine structure

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 881, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163449

关键词

XAFS; Fe stable isotope; Tissue distribution of Fe; Ferritin; Heme; Marine fish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By analyzing multiple tissues of a skipjack tuna and a chub mackerel, it was found that there is a difference in heme iron and ferritin between liver and muscle samples, indicating the influence of iron storage on the stable isotope ratio in marine fish.
The Fe stable isotope ratio (856Fe) in tissues is a potential parameter for examining the Fe metabolism in marine fish. Although the effect of ferritin storage has been proposed as a possible cause of heavy isotope (56Fe) enrichment in the liver, no speciation and stable isotope ratio coupling data are available. Here, we report the 856Fe values measured by multicollector ICP-MS and the result of Fe K-edge X-ray absorption near-edge structure (XANES) analysis of multiple tissues obtained from a skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) and a chub mackerel (Scomberjaponicus). Apparent isotopic fractionation between the liver and the muscle samples (A56FeL-M = 856Feliver - 856Femuscle) from these species was observed (0.85 %o and 0.57 %o, respectively). The dominant Fe species in the muscle was heme Fe (the sum of methemoglobin, oxyhemoglobin, and deoxyhemoglobin), while ferritin was not detected according to the linear combination fitting of the XANES spectra. In the liver, ferritin contribution was ca. 28 %-54 % of the total Fe content. The apparent difference in 856Fe between heme Fe and ferritin was estimated to range from 1.41 %o to 1.52 %o based on the tissue-specific 856Fe values and the XANES results. These results indicate that the Fe storage as ferritin does not induce the lowering of 856Fe in the muscle, considering the low contribution of the liver Fe to the total Fe content in the body.

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