4.2 Article

Endocrine-disrupting activity in carbendazim-induced reproductive. and developmental toxicity in rats

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15287390490486833

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was designed to investigate the endocrine-disrupting activity of carbendazim-induced reproductive and developmental toxicity in Sprague-Dawley rats treated orally with the fungicide. Cotreatment of male rats with 675 mg/kg carbendazim and 50 or 100 mg/kg flutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist, once daily for 28 d blocked decrease of testis weight induced by treatment with carbendazim alone. The cotreatment prevented losses of spermatozoa and cell morphology and decrease of sperm concentration induced by carbendazim. Pre-mating treatment of male and female rats with 200 mg/kg carbendazim for 28 d produced androgenic effects including incomplete development of uterine horn, enlargement of uretha, absence of vagina, and induction of seminal vesicles in female offspring, without marked effects in male offspring. Premating treatment with 100 mg/kg benomyl, the parent compound of carbendazim, resulted in incomplete development of uterine horn and absence of vagina in female offspring and produced testis and epidydimis atropy in male offspring. Treatment of male rats with 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800 mg/kg carbendazim for 56 d produced dose-dependent increases of androgen receptor concentrations in testis and,epididymis. Additions of 5, 50, and 500 muM carbendazim to testis extract from untreated rats replaced binding of [H-3]-5alpha-dihydrotestosterone to androgen receptor in a concentration-dependent manner. The present study demonstrates that reproductive toxicity induced by carbendazim is blocked by an androgen receptor antagonist in male rats and developmental toxicity of the fungicide shows androgenic properties in female offspring. These results suggest that androgen- and androgen receptor-dependent mechanisms are possibly involved in carbendazim-induced toxicity.

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

4.2
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