4.7 Article

Sulfhydryl systems are a critical factor in the zebrafish developmental toxicity of the dithiocarbamate sodium metam (NaM)

期刊

AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY
卷 90, 期 2, 页码 121-127

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2008.08.008

关键词

Zebrafish; Developmental toxicity; Pesticides

资金

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [P30 ES000210-36, P30 ES000210] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dithiocarbamates (DTCs) are sulfhydryls (thiol)-containing compounds, often associated with metals, and have both antioxidant and pro-oxidant abilities depending on the compound, experimental system and condition. In this study we investigated whether cell death plays a role in the manifestation of DTC-induced notochord distortions in the developing zebrafish and if thiol-containing compounds or antioxidants could modify this developmental toxicity. Sodium metam (NaM) induced notochord distortions could not be protected with the antioxidants ascorbic acid, trolox (synthetic vitamin E) or lipoic acid. However, NaM-induced distortions could be protected with co-exposure to glutathione or N-Acetyl Cysteine. Staggering the NaM and glutathione exposures in consecutive 10 h developmental windows also resulted in protection. There were no discernable changes in TUNEL positive cells, a marker of apoptotic cells, at 24 h post-fertilization (hpf) in NaM, dimethyl-dithiocarbamate, carbon disulfide, or neocuproine exposed embryos. Live NaM-exposed embryos incubated with acridine orange, a general stain for cell death, for 1 h beginning at 11, 18 and 24 hpf showed clusters of stained nuclei near the somitogenic front but not in the cells making up the notochord. Overall, induction of apoptotic pathways and widespread cell death are not involved in the manifestation of the adverse developmental outcomes following NaM exposure. However, cellular thiol status or critical sulfhydryl moieties are important considerations in the mechanisms of DTC developmental toxicity. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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