4.4 Article

Aflatoxin B1 reduces non-enzymatic antioxidant defenses and increases protein kinase C activation in the cerebral cortex of young rats

期刊

NUTRITIONAL NEUROSCIENCE
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 268-275

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1028415X.2017.1278837

关键词

Aflatoxins; Mycotoxin; Protein kinase C; Ascorbic acid; Non-protein thiols; Cerebral cortex

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS) [1879-25.51/13-6]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [471653/2013-6]
  3. CNPq
  4. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is the most widespread mycotoxin, and it is a feed contaminant and is highly toxic, causing carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic effects. Many researches clarified the peripheral effects of the exposition to AFB1; however, there are few studies explaining their effects on central nervous system. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects caused by acute oral administration of AFB1 on behavioral tests and selected biochemical parameters. Methods: Young male Wistar rats received a single administration of AFB1 (250 mu g/kg/i.g.) and 48 hours thereafter they were subjected to behavioral analysis. After the tests, biochemical parameters were measured in the cerebral cortex. Results: Acute treatment with AFB1 caused neurotoxic effects, evidenced by a significant reduction in the levels of non-enzymatic antioxidant defenses, ascorbic acid, and non-protein sulfhydryl groups. In addition, AFB1 increased protein kinase C (PKC) activation, evidenced by an increase in phosphorylation of Ser(957) of PKC. Discussion: In this acute protocol, a single oral administration of AFB1 was able to cause changes in important neurochemical parameters, without concomitant, detectable behavioral alterations. These results reinforce that monitoring mycotoxin levels in food is essential to guarantee food security.

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

4.4
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