4.5 Article

CHRONIC EXPOSURE TO FLUOXETINE (PROZAC) CAUSES DEVELOPMENTAL DELAYS IN RANA PIPIENS LARVAE

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 2845-2850

出版社

SETAC PRESS
DOI: 10.1002/etc.345

关键词

Pharmaceuticals; Toxicity; Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; Amphibian; Environment

资金

  1. University of Michigan
  2. Peter Olaus Okkelberg Fellowship funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as fluoxetine are among the many pharmaceuticals detected in aquatic ecosystems Although the acute effects of SSRIs on select organisms have been reported little is understood about the chronic effects of these drugs on amphibians which are particularly sensitive to environmental pollutants Serotonin plays Important roles in many physiological functions including a wide array of developmental processes Exposure to SSRIs during development may cause developmental complications in a variety of organisms but little is known about the degree of exposure necessary to cause deleterious effects Here we sought to gain a better understanding of the effects of SSRIs on amphibian development by use of a combined laboratory and outdoor mesocosm study Tadpoles in a laboratory setting were exposed to a low (0 029 mu g/L) and a high (0 29 mu g/L) concentration of the common SSRI fluoxetine from stages 21 and 22 through completion of metamorphosis Tadpoles in outdoor mesocosms were exposed to fluoxetine concentrations ranging from 0 I to 0 3 mu g/L Exposed tadpoles in the laboratory showed delayed development compared with controls when stage was assessed throughout the experiment Control tadpoles also gained weight faster than treatment tadpoles which may be explained by reduced food intake Mesocosm tadpoles exhibited similar trends but no significant differences were detected These results indicate that ecologically relevant levels of fluoxetine may cause developmental delays in amphibians Environ Toxicol Chem 2010 29 2845-2850 (C) 2010 SETAC

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