4.5 Article

Differences between the tolerance of camel oocytes and cumulus cells to acute and chronic hyperthermia

期刊

JOURNAL OF THERMAL BIOLOGY
卷 74, 期 -, 页码 47-54

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.03.014

关键词

HSPs; BAX; P53; Heat stress; Camel

资金

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University [RG-1438-018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dromedary camel (Camel dromedarius) is physiologically well adapted to life in hot, dry and barren land. In the present study, we report the tolerance of camel oocytes and cumulus cells to acute and chronic heat shock. Camel oocytes and cumulus cells were exposed to acute (45 degrees C for 2 h) and chronic (45 degrees C for 20 h) heat shock. Our results demonstrated that acute and chronic heat shock altered malondialdehyde concentration, which is a marker for oxidative stress. Furthermore, the heat shock reduced glutathione levels during in vitro oocyte maturation. The expression of two well-known heat shock proteins HSP70 and HSP90 were increased similarly in oocytes and cumulus cells after acute heat shock. Oocytes were less tolerant to the short acute heat shock, and showed decreased maturation, which leads to reduction in ooplasmic diameter and an increase in chromosomal count abnormalities. Furthermore, the pro-apoptotic genes P53 and BAX had increased expression levels, whereas for the anti-apoptotic gene such as BCL2 expression levels was decreased. On the other hand, the cumulus cells tolerated acute and chronic heat shock, as evident by the increase in HSP70 and HSP90 expression and steady expression levels of P53, BAX, and BCL2 after acute hyperthermia. Cumulus cells regained their vitality and ability to proliferate after chronic hyperthermia and showed wound healing capabilities after 9 days of chronic hyperthermia. Collectively, these results indicate the adaptive tolerance of camel somatic cells to acute and chronic heat shock, which is lethal to cells in many other mammals.

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

4.5
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