4.7 Article

In vivo spermatotoxic effect of chromium as reflected in the epididymal epithelial principal cells, basal cells, and intralepithelial macrophages of a nonhuman primate (Macaca radiata Geoffroy)

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 86, 期 -, 页码 1097-1105

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.03.025

关键词

basal cell; chromium; epididymis marcophage; lipofuscin material; principal cell; spermatotoxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To understand, through a simulation experiment in a nonhuman primate model, the potential in vivo spermatotoxic effect of hexavalent chromium (CrVI) in men who are occupationally or environmentally exposed to it. Design: Controlled laboratory study. Setting: Research laboratory in a department of endocrinology in a university in India. Animal(s): Male bonnet monkey, Macaca radiata Geoffrey. Intervention(s): Monkeys were exposed ad libitum to 100, 200 and 400 ppm CrVI, dissolved in drinking water, for a chronic period of 180 days. Main Outcome Measures: Examination of epididymis with a transmission electron microscope and assessment of the effect of CrVI in terms of accumulation of sperm-derived lipofuscin (LF) material in the principle cells, basal cells and intrapethial macrophages of the epithelium. Result(s): The abundance of basal cells and intrapethial macrophages and the content of LF material in these cell types increased. The principal cells phagocytosed from the lumen the dead sperm resulting from CrVI exposure and processed them partially into LF material, which was acquired by the basal cells and intrapethial macrophages and processed further. The LF-laden material basal cells and intrapethial macrophages appeared to leave the epithelium, accompanied by recruitment of fresh basal cells and intrapethial macrophages. Conclusion(s): Occupational or environmental exposure to CrVI, as would occur in the tannery, soap and other industries in developing and underdeveloped countries, can be toxic in vivo to spermatozoa.

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