4.7 Article

Ecotoxicological assessment of cobalt using Hydra model: ROS, oxidative stress, DNA damage, cell cycle arrest, and apoptosis as mechanisms of toxicity

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 224, 期 -, 页码 54-69

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.042

关键词

Hydra; Cobalt; Histology; Developmental toxicity; Oxidative stress; Apoptosis

资金

  1. Doerenkamp-Zbinden Foundation, Switzerland, through Mahatma Gandhi-Doerenkamp Center
  2. Ministry of Minority Affairs, Government of India [F1-17.1/2011/MANF-MUS-WES-7390]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanisms underlying cobalt toxicity in aquatic species in general and cnidarians in particular remain poorly understood. Herein we investigated cobalt toxicity in a Hydra model from morphological, histological, developmental, and molecular biological perspectives. Hydra, exposed to cobalt (0-60 mg/L), were altered in morphology, histology, and regeneration. Exposure to standardized sublethal doses of cobalt impaired feeding by affecting nematocytes, which in turn affected reproduction. At the cellular level, excessive ROS generation, as the principal mechanism of action, primarily occurred in the lyso-somes, which was accompanied by the upregulation of expression of the antioxidant genes SOD, GST, GPx, and G6PD. The number of Hsp70 and FoxO transcripts also increased. Interestingly, the upregulations were higher in the 24-h than in the 48-h time-point group, indicating that ROS overwhelmed the cellular defense mechanisms at the latter time-point. Comet assay revealed DNA damage. Cell cycle analysis indicated the induction of apoptosis accompanied or not by cell cycle arrest. Immunoblot analyses revealed that cobalt treatment triggered mitochondria-mediated apoptosis as inferred from the modulation of the key proteins Bax, Bcl-2, and caspase-3. From this data, we suggest the use of Hydra as a model organism for the risk assessment of heavy metal pollution in aquatic ecosystems. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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