IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v11y2014i5p4589-4606d35501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cyanobacterial Xenobiotics as Evaluated by a Caenorhabditis elegans Neurotoxicity Screening Test

Author

Listed:
  • Jingjuan Ju

    (Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China
    Department of Biology, Freshwater and Stress Ecology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Späthstr. 80/81, Berlin 12437, Germany)

  • Nadine Saul

    (Department of Biology, Freshwater and Stress Ecology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Späthstr. 80/81, Berlin 12437, Germany)

  • Cindy Kochan

    (Chair of Water Quality Control, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, Berlin 10623, Germany)

  • Anke Putschew

    (Chair of Water Quality Control, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, Berlin 10623, Germany)

  • Yuepu Pu

    (Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China)

  • Lihong Yin

    (Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China)

  • Christian E. W. Steinberg

    (Department of Biology, Freshwater and Stress Ecology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Späthstr. 80/81, Berlin 12437, Germany)

Abstract

In fresh waters cyanobacterial blooms can produce a variety of toxins, such as microcystin variants (MCs) and anatoxin- a (ANA). ANA is a well-known neurotoxin, whereas MCs are hepatotoxic and, to a lesser degree, also neurotoxic. Neurotoxicity applies especially to invertebrates lacking livers. Current standardized neurotoxicity screening methods use rats or mice. However, in order to minimize vertebrate animal experiments as well as experimental time and effort, many investigators have proposed the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans as an appropriate invertebrate model. Therefore, four known neurotoxic compounds (positive compounds: chlorpyrifos, abamectin, atropine, and acrylamide) were chosen to verify the expected impacts on autonomic (locomotion, feeding, defecation) and sensory (thermal, chemical, and mechanical sensory perception) functions in C. elegans . This study is another step towards successfully establishing C. elegans as an alternative neurotoxicity model. By using this protocol, anatoxin- a adversely affected locomotive behavior and pharyngeal pumping frequency and, most strongly, chemotactic and thermotactic behavior, whereas MC-LR impacted locomotion, pumping, and mechanical behavior, but not chemical sensory behavior. Environmental samples can also be screened in this simple and fast way for neurotoxic characteristics. The filtrate of a Microcystis aeruginosa culture, known for its hepatotoxicity, also displayed mild neurotoxicity (modulated short-term thermotaxis). These results show the suitability of this assay for environmental cyanotoxin-containing samples.

Suggested Citation

  • Jingjuan Ju & Nadine Saul & Cindy Kochan & Anke Putschew & Yuepu Pu & Lihong Yin & Christian E. W. Steinberg, 2014. "Cyanobacterial Xenobiotics as Evaluated by a Caenorhabditis elegans Neurotoxicity Screening Test," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:11:y:2014:i:5:p:4589-4606:d:35501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/5/4589/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/5/4589/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Samantha Hughes & David van de Klashorst & Charles A. Veltri & Oliver Grundmann, 2022. "Acute, Sublethal, and Developmental Toxicity of Kratom ( Mitragyna speciosa Korth.) Leaf Preparations on Caenorhabditis elegans as an Invertebrate Model for Human Exposure," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-19, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:11:y:2014:i:5:p:4589-4606:d:35501. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.