4.5 Article

NAD+ Supplementation Attenuates Methylmercury Dopaminergic and Mitochondrial Toxicity in Caenorhabditis Elegans

期刊

TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 151, 期 1, 页码 139-149

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfw030

关键词

methylmercury; dopaminergic neurons; mitochondria; C. elegans

资金

  1. NIEHS [R01 ES007331, R01 ES020852]
  2. Vanderbilt University Center in Molecular Toxicology [P30 ES000267]
  3. Vanderbilt University Training Program in Environmental Toxicology [5T32 ES007028]
  4. National Institutes of Health [CA68485, DK20593, DK58404, HD15052, DK59637, EY08126]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methylmercury (MeHg) is a neurotoxic contaminant of our fish supply that has been linked to dopaminergic (DAergic) dysfunction that characterizes Parkinson's disease. We have previously shown that MeHg causes both morphological and behavioral changes in the Caenorhabditis elegans DAergic neurons that are associated with oxidative stress. We were therefore interested in whether the redox sensitive cofactor nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD(+)) may be affected by MeHg and whether supplementation of NAD (+) may prevent MeHg-induced toxicities. Worms treated with MeHg showed depletion in cellular NAD (+) levels, which was prevented by NAD (+) supplementation prior to MeHg treatment. NAD (+) supplementation also prevented DAergic neurodegeneration and deficits in DAergic-dependent behavior upon MeHg exposure. In a mutant worm line that cannot synthesize NAD (+) from nicotinamide, MeHg lethality and DAergic behavioral deficits were more sensitive to MeHg than wildtype worms, demonstrating the importance of NAD (+) in MeHg toxicity. In wildtype worms, NAD (+) supplementation provided protection from MeHg-induced oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction. These data show the importance of NAD (+) levels in the response to MeHg exposure. NAD (+) supplementation may be beneficial for MeHg-induced toxicities and preventing cellular damage involved in Parkinson's disease.

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