4.2 Article

Hemolytic effects of sodium selenite and mercuric chloride in human blood

期刊

DRUG AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 397-407

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01480540500262763

关键词

hemolysis; human erythrocytes; mercuric chloride; sodium selenite

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many works have reported the interaction between selenium and mercury in the mammalian body and that chalcogen seems to have a protective effect against mercury toxicity. The aim of this study was to investigate the hemolytic effects of sodium selenite and/or mercuric chloride in human blood under in vitro conditions. For this, total venous blood from healthy subjects (males and females) was heparinized and incubated at 37 degrees C for 90 min with different concentrations of sodium selenite and/or mercuric chloride. The hemolytic effects of compounds were evaluated by measuring plasma hemoglobin concentration after centrifugation. In addition, 2-thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) from plasma and erythrocytes, as well as erythrocyte nonprotein thiols (NPSH), were also evaluated in order to investigate molecular mechanisms related to selenite- or mercury-induced hemolysis. Mercuric chloride and sodium selenite, alone (400 mu M), promoted a small in vitro hemolytic effect in human erythrocytes. However, when blood was exposed to both compounds (200 mu M of each), there was an extremely high synergistic hemolytic effect. The exposure of blood to sodium selenite (400 mu M), mercuric chloride (400 mu M), and both compounds (200 mu M each) did not alter erythrocyte TBARS levels. Sodium selenite presented a high oxidant effect toward erythrocyte NPSH; however, this effect was inhibited by mercuric chloride. The current results point to a synergistic hemolytic effect of sodium selenite and mercuric chloride in human blood, suggesting new understanding on the selenium-mercury antagonism. Moreover, this observed hemolysis seems to be not related to lipoperoxidation or thiol depletion.

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