4.5 Article

Neonatal exposure to low doses of endosulfan induces implantation failure and disrupts uterine functional differentiation at the preimplantation period in rats

期刊

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 401, 期 C, 页码 248-259

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mce.2014.11.028

关键词

Endosulfan; Uterus; Implantation; Estrogen receptor alpha; Progesterone receptor; Hoxa10

资金

  1. CONICET [PIP 112-200801-00218]
  2. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica (ANPCyT) [PICT 2011-1491]
  3. Universidad Nacional del Litoral (CAI + D) [501 201101 00423 LI]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated whether neonatal exposure to low doses of endosulfan affects fertility and uterine functional differentiation at pre-implantation in rats. Newborn female rats received the vehicle, 0.2 mu g/kg/d of diethylstilbestrol (DES), 6 mu g/kg/d of endosulfan (Endo6) or 600 mu g/kg/d of endosulfan (Endo600) on postnatal days (PND) 1, 3, 5, and 7. On PND90, the rats were mated to evaluate their reproductive performance on gestational day (GD) 19 and their ovarian steroid serum levels, endometrial proliferation and implantation-associated proteins on GD5. DES and endosulfan decreased the pregnancy rate and the number of implantation sites. On GD5, DES and endosulfan did not change the serum levels of 17 beta-estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P); the endometrial proliferation decreased, which was associated with silencing of Hoxa10 in the Endo600-treated rats. Both doses of endosulfan increased the progesterone receptor (PR) expression, whereas the higher dose led additionally to an increase in estrogen receptor alpha (ER alpha). In the Endo600-treated rats, the down-regulation of Hoxa10 was associated with a deregulation of the steroid receptor coregulators. Alterations in endometrial proliferation and the endocrine pathway of Hoxa10/steroid receptors/coregulators might be the mechanism of endosulfan-induced implantation failure. (c) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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