4.6 Article

Bisphenol A alters the cardiovascular response to hypoxia in Danio rerio embryos

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpc.2015.06.006

关键词

Endocrine disruption; Bisphenol A; Hypoxia; Zebrafish; Cardiovascular; Co-exposure; HIF-1 alpha

资金

  1. Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences Student Research/Scholarship Awards at The University of Akron (UA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to determine if the cardiovascular response to hypoxia was altered by the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) in Danio rerio embryos. It was expected that BPA exposure would affect cardiovascular parameters during hypoxia more than normoxia due to an interaction between BPA and the hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF-1 alpha) pathway. We demonstrate that BPA exposure has a minimal effect during normoxia but can severely affect the cardiovascular system during a hypoxic event. Cardiovascular response was measured in vivo using video microscopy and digital motion analysis. RBC density increased 35% in hypoxia alone but decreased 48% with addition of 0.25 mg/L BPA. Tissue vascularization (% coverage) was unaffected by hypoxia alone but decreased 37% with addition of 025 mg/L BPA. The diameter and RBC velocity of arteries were more sensitive than veins to BPA exposure during both normoxia and hypoxia. Arterial RBC velocity decreased 42% during normoxia and 52% during hypoxia with 1 mg/L BPA. This decrease in velocity may in part be due to the 86% decrease in heart rate (f(H)) observed during co-exposure to hypoxia and 5 mg/L BPA. While stroke volume (S-V) was unaffected by treatment, cardiac output (Q) decreased by 69% with co-exposure. f(H) and Q were not affected by BPA exposure during normoxia. Development ultimately slowed by 146% and mortality rates were 95% during hypoxia when exposed to 5 mg/L BPA. Our results show for the first time that BPA exposure alters the cardiovascular system during hypoxia more so than normoxia. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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