4.7 Article

In vitro effects of cadmium and mercury on Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas (Thunberg), haemocytes

期刊

FISH & SHELLFISH IMMUNOLOGY
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 501-512

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsi.2003.08.007

关键词

Crassostrea gigas; haemocytes; flow cytometry; cadmium; mercury; phenoloxidase; cellular activities; toxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the past decades. shellfish culture has developed in a significant way around the world. However, culture areas are Often Subject to recurring anthropic pollution. The recrudescent presence of industrial wastes is a source of heavy metals and results ill pollutant transfer towards the aquatic environment in estuarine areas. Because of their mode of life. bivalves. including Mussels and oysters. are suggested as ideal indicator organisms. The development of techniques allowing the analysis of the effects of Pollutants on bivalve biology may lead to the monitoring of pollutant transfer in estuarine areas. in this context. the effects of cadmium and mercury On defence mechanisms were analysed in Pacific oysters. Crassostrea gigas. Pollutant effects were tested in vitro oil oyster haemocytes. Cell viability and enzymatic activities (esterase. peroxidase. aminopeptidase, phagocytosis activities) were monitored by flow cytometry. Enzymatic phenoloxidase-like activity was also evaluated by spectrophotometry. High pollutant concentrations were used in order to detect the acute effect and to approach real Pollutant concentrations existing ill animal tissues. Cadmium induced no effect on oyster haemocytes under the tested conditions. On the contrary, mercury caused a significant haemocyte mortality after a 24 It in vitro incubation. Aminopeptidase positive cell percentage was enhanced by the pollutant, and phenoloxidase-like activity was inhibited. These in vitro results show that mercury may be expected to have tit impact oil bivalve immune functions in contaminated areas. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. 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