4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Reversibility of the adverse effects of 1-bromopropane exposure in rats

期刊

TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 100, 期 2, 页码 504-512

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfm245

关键词

neurotoxicity; reproductive toxicity; 1-bromopropane; spermatogenic cells; spermiation; gamma-enolase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous experiments indicated that 1-bromopropane (1-BP), an alternative to chloroflurocarbons, is neurotoxic and inhibits spermiation in the testis. Here we investigated the reversibility of the toxic effects of 1-BP in rats. Male Wistar rats were divided into three equal groups of 24 each and exposed by inhalation to 0, 400 or 1000 ppm of 1-BP for 6 weeks (8 hrs/day, 7 days/week). Eight rats from each group were sacrificed at the end of 6 weeks exposure, and at 4 and 14 weeks after the end of exposure, to assess the recovery processes. We studied sperm count, motility, morphology and testicular histopathology, as well as blood pressure, skin temperature and hindlimb muscle strength. At the end of 6 weeks of exposure to 1000 ppm (0 week recovery), testicular weight, epididymal weight, sperm count and motility were low, morphologically abnormal sperm were increased and spermatogenic cells showed diffuse degeneration. These changes did not show full recovery at 14 weeks recovery, with the exception of the prostate and seminal vesicular weights, which recovered back to control values. At 400 ppm, increased retained spermatids at 0 week recovery returned to normal at 4 weeks recovery. Exposure to 1000 ppm produced sustained reduction of hindlimb muscle strength at 14 weeks recovery, whereas normalization of the skin temperature and blood pressure was noted after transient changes. Our study showed that the effect of 1-BP on spermatogenesis is dose-dependent; low exposure inhibited spermiation and hormone-dependent organ weight reduction and these changes were transient, while a higher dose of 1000 ppm 1-BP caused persistent depletion of spermatogenic cells.

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