4.7 Article

Long-term exposure of high concentration heavy metals induced toxicity, fatality, and gut microbial dysbiosis in common carp, Cyprinus carpio

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 266, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115293

关键词

Heavy metals; Toxicity; Oxidative stress; Tissue damage; Microbial dysbiosis

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [lzujbky2017-br01]
  2. Gansu Province Major Science and Technology projects [17ZD2WA017]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation [31870082]
  4. start-up fund for the Construction of the Double First-class project [561119201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heavy metals (HMs) in an aquatic environment mainly affects fish, and thus, fish are convenient pollution bio-indicators. In this study, the toxic effects of HM mixture (chromium (Cr), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu)) in 0 mg/L to 3.2 mg/L concentration range was investigated in Cyprinus carpio (28 days). HM accumulation, histopathology, oxidative stress, and gut microbial changes were evaluated. HMs accumulated in the order of Cr > Cu > Cd, primarily in the kidneys and finally scales. Reactive oxygen species generation increased in all exposure groups up to day 14, with maximum generation at 3.2 mg/L mixture, which later decreased on day 28 in all. Malondialdehydeand and superoxide dismutase levels increased from day 7 to 28 with increased HM concentrations, while total protein showed an inverse trend. Gill histopathology showed major changes such as uplifted and disintegrated primary lamella, and secondary lamella shortening. The kidneys were characterized by glomerular necrosis, Bowman's capsule expansion, and tubular space dilatation. Proteobacteria and Firmicutes abundance increased up to 59.4% and 99.16% in 0.8 mg/L and 3.2 mg/L treatment groups, respectively. This study provided a better understanding on the physiology and gut microbiota alteration in C. carpio under multiple HM stress. (C) 2020 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