4.8 Article

The Good, the Bad, and the Toxic: Approaching Hormesis in Daphnia magna Exposed to an Energetic Compound

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 47, 期 16, 页码 9424-9433

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es401115q

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [MCB 0455318, 0920663, DBI 0521587]
  2. NSF EPSCoR [EPS-0236913]
  3. KINBRE (NIH) [P20 RR16475]
  4. US Army Environmental Quality Research Program [BAA 11-4838]
  5. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience [0920663] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [P20RR016475] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [P20GM103418] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A hormetic response is characterized by an opposite effect in small and large doses of chemical exposure, often resulting in seemingly beneficial effects at low doses. Here, we examined the potential mechanisms underlying the hormetic response of Daphnia magna to the energetic trinitrotoluene (TNT). Daphnia magna were exposed to TNT for 21 days, and a significant increase in adult length and number of neonates was identified at low concentrations (0.002-0.22 mg/L TNT), while toxic effects were identified at high concentrations (0.97 mg/L TNT and above). Microarray analysis of D. magna exposed to 0.004, 0.12, and 1.85 mg/L TNT identified effects on lipid metabolism as a potential mechanism underlying hormetic effects. Lipidomic analysis of exposed D. magna supported the hypothesis that TNT exposure affected lipid and fatty acid metabolism, showing that hormetic effects could be related to changes in polyunsaturated fatty acids known to be involved in Daphnia growth and reproduction. Our results show that Daphnia exposed to low levels of TNT presented hormetic growth and reproduction enhancement, while higher TNT concentrations had an opposite effect. Our results also show how a systems approach can help elucidate potential mechanisms of action and adverse outcomes.

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

4.8
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