4.5 Article

Developmental mercury exposure elicits acute hippocampal cell death, reductions in neurogenesis, and severe learning deficits during puberty

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROCHEMISTRY
卷 103, 期 5, 页码 1968-1981

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2007.04882.x

关键词

cell cycle; hippocampus; learning; methylmercury; neurogenesis; programmed cell death

资金

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [ES11256, P01 ES011256, P30 ES005022, T32 ES007148] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH059970-07, R01 MH059970, R01 MH059970-05, R01 MH059970-06] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Normal brain development requires coordinated regulation of several processes including proliferation, differentiation, and cell death. Multiple factors from endogenous and exogenous sources interact to elicit positive as well as negative regulation of these processes. In particular, the perinatal rat brain is highly vulnerable to specific developmental insults that produce later cognitive abnormalities. We used this model to examine the developmental effects of an exogenous factor of great concern, methylmercury (MeHg). Seven-day-old rats received a single injection of MeHg (5 mu g/gbw). MeHg inhibited DNA synthesis by 44% and reduced levels of cyclins D1, D3, and E at 24 h in the hippocampus, but not the cerebellum. Toxicity was associated acutely with caspase-dependent programmed cell death. MeHg exposure led to reductions in hippocampal size (21%) and cell numbers 2 weeks later, especially in the granule cell layer (16%) and hilus (50%) of the dentate gyrus defined stereologically, suggesting that neurons might be particularly vulnerable. Consistent with this, perinatal exposure led to profound deficits in juvenile hippocampal-dependent learning during training on a spatial navigation task. In aggregate, these studies indicate that exposure to one dose of MeHg during the perinatal period acutely induces apoptotic cell death, which results in later deficits in hippocampal structure and function.

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