4.5 Article

Impact of methylmercury exposure on mitochondrial energetics in AC16 and H9C2 cardiomyocytes

Journal

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 953-961

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2015.03.016

Keywords

AC16; H9C2; Methylmercury; Cardiomyocytes; Mitochondria; Bioenergetics

Categories

Funding

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through a Discovery Grant
  2. Canada Research Chair Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It has been reported that chronic low dose exposures of methylmercury (MeHg) is associated with cardiovascular diseases in many populations worldwide. The toxic mechanisms through which these adverse effects occur are currently unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the bioenergetic and cytotoxic effects of MeHg on AC16 and H9C2 cardiomyocyte cell lines. Both cell lines exhibit significantly decreased mitochondrial function, cell viability and increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) production. Decreases in maximal respiration and reserve capacity was observed in both cell lines at 1 mu M. Bioenergetic profile experiments were also performed in tandem with cells exposed to diamide or menadione, compounds which accumulate in mitochondria and disrupt oxidative phosphorylation. AC16 cells show MeHg dose dependant sensitivities with State(apparent) and ATP production values, but H9C2 cells do not show these trends. H9C2 cells may be more resistant to MeHg toxicity than AC16 cells as reflected in the increases of proton leak and State(apparent). No changes in expression of respiratory complexes were observed. Results suggest that MeHg has the potential to induce cytotoxicity. Furthermore, MeHg may have differential effects on AC16 and H9C2 cells, derived from human and rat cardiac tissue respectively, suggesting that differences in MeHg toxicity may be species-dependent. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available