4.5 Article

Brain manganese accumulation is inversely related to γ-amino butyric acid uptake in male and female rats

期刊

TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 95, 期 1, 页码 188-195

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfl130

关键词

GABA; iron deficiency; manganese; rat; neurotoxicity

资金

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [ES013791-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Iron (Fe) is an essential trace metal involved in numerous cellular processes. Iron deficiency (ID) is reported as the most prevalent nutritional problem worldwide. Increasing evidence suggests that ID is associated with altered neurotransmitter metabolism and a risk factor for manganese (Mn) neurotoxicity. Though recent studies have established differences in which the female brain responds to ID-related neurochemical alterations versus the male brain, little is known about the interactions of dietary ID, Mn exposure, and sex on gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA). Male and female Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into four dietary treatment groups: control (CN), control/ Mn supplemented, ID, and ID/Mn supplemented. After 6 weeks of treatment, both ID diets caused a highly significant decrease in Fe concentrations across all brain regions compared to CN in both sexes. Both ID and Mn supplementation led to significant accumulation of Mn across all brain regions in both sexes. There was no main effect of sex on Fe or Mn accumulation. Striatal synaptosomes were utilized to examine the effect of dietary intervention on H-3-GABA uptake. At 4 weeks, there was a significant correlation between Fe concentration and H-3-GABA uptake in male rats (p < 0.05). At 6 weeks, there was a significant inverse correlation between Mn concentration and 3H-GABA uptake in male and female rats and a postitive correlation between Fe concentration and H-3-GABA uptake in female rats (p < 0.05). In conclusion, ID-associated Mn accumulation is similar in both sexes, with Mn levels affecting GABA uptake in both sexes in a comparable fashion.

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