4.5 Article

Conserved toxic responses across divergent phylogenetic lineages: a meta-analysis of the neurotoxic effects of RDX among multiple species using toxicogenomics

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 580-594

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10646-011-0623-3

关键词

Genomics; Meta-analysis; Species comparison; GABA(A) receptor; RDX

资金

  1. US Army

向作者/读者索取更多资源

At military training sites, a variety of pollutants such as hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), may contaminate the area originating from used munitions. Studies investigating the mechanism of toxicity of RDX have shown that it affects the central nervous system causing seizures in humans and animals. Environmental pollutants such as RDX have the potential to affect many different species, therefore it is important to establish how phylogenetically distant species may respond to these types of emerging pollutants. In this paper, we have used a transcriptional network approach to compare and contrast the neurotoxic effects of RDX among five phylogenetically disparate species: rat (Sprague-Dawley), Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), earthworm (Eisenia fetida), and coral (Acropora formosa). Pathway enrichment analysis indicated a conservation of RDX impacts on pathways related to neuronal function in rat, Northern bobwhite quail, fathead minnows and earthworm, but not in coral. As evolutionary distance increased common responses decreased with impacts on energy and metabolism dominating effects in coral. A neurotransmission related transcriptional network based on whole rat brain responses to RDX exposure was used to identify functionally related modules of genes, components of which were conserved across species depending upon evolutionary distance. Overall, the meta-analysis using genomic data of the effects of RDX on several species suggested a common and conserved mode of action of the chemical throughout phylogenetically remote organisms.

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

4.5
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