4.7 Article

Quantitatively evaluating detoxification of the hepatotoxic microcystin-LR through the glutathione (GSH) pathway in SD rats

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 23, 页码 19273-19284

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-5531-2

关键词

Microcystin-LR-GSH/Cys; Detoxification; GSH pathway; Liver; Rat

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [31070457, 31322013]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Freshwater Ecology and Biotechnology [2014FBZ02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glutathione (GSH) plays crucial roles in antioxidant defense and detoxification metabolism of microcystin-LR (MC-LR). However, the detoxification process of MC-LR in mammals remains largely unknown. This paper, for the first time, quantitatively analyzes MC-LR and its GSH pathway metabolites (MC-LR-GSH and MC-LR-Cys) in the liver of Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat after MC-LR exposure. Rats received intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection of 0.25 and 0.5 lethal dose 50 (LD50) of MC-LR with or without pretreatment of buthionine-(S,R)-sulfoximine (BSO), an inhibitor of GSH synthesis. The contents of MC-LR-GSH were relatively low during the experiment; however, the ratio of MC-LR-Cys to MC-LR reached as high as 6.65 in 0.5 LD50 group. These results demonstrated that MC-LR-GSH could be converted to MC-LR-Cys efficiently, and this metabolic rule was in agreement with the data of aquatic animals previously reported. MC-LR contents were much higher in BSO + MC-LR-treated groups than in the single MC-LR-treated groups. Moreover, the ratio of MC-LR-Cys to MC-LR decreased significantly after BSO pretreatment, suggesting that the depletion of GSH induced by BSO reduced the detoxification of MCs. Moreover, MC-LR remarkably induced liver damage, and the effects were more pronounced in BSO pretreatment groups. In conclusion, this study verifies the role of GSH in the detoxification of MC-LR and furthers our understanding of the biochemical mechanism for SD rats to counteract toxic cyanobacteria.

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