4.4 Article

Warmer water temperature results in oxidative damage in an Antarctic fish, the bald notothen

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2015.02.018

关键词

Fish; Global warming; Oxidative stress; Oxidative damage; Polar

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. McMurdo Station
  3. Swedish Polar Research Secretariat
  4. Swedish Research Council Formas
  5. Vetenskapsradet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global climate change is predicted to result in increases in water temperature in the polar regions, but the full consequences of this for marine fish species are not understood, especially with regard to cellular mechanisms underlying oxidative stress. Warmer temperatures could potentially result in increased oxidative stress, and it is not known whether stenothermal fish can cope with this on a cellular and physiological level. In order to address this, we exposed bald notothen (Pagothenta borchgrevinki), a fish species endemic to Antarctica, to an increase in temperature from -1.6 degrees C to 4 degrees C and measured the effects on oxidative stress including antioxidant defenses, oxidative damage in proteins and lipids, and transcriptional regulation of involved genes. We show that the fish responds to an acute (12 h) temperature increase with increased antioxidant defenses. However, these antioxidant defenses were similar to basal levels following long-term (3 weeks) exposure to the higher temperature and moreover, these individuals also had higher levels of oxidative damage. These results indicate that this species has the ability to alter levels of endogenous antioxidants, but that this response is transient and insufficient to protect against oxidative damage. These effects may have serious consequences for these fish in a warmer future since long-term consequences of this accumulation of damaged lipids and proteins are associated with aging and known to include decreased cellular function, disease and eventually cell death. (C) 2015 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

4.4
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