4.8 Article

High Conservation in Transcriptomic and Proteomic Response of White Sturgeon to Equipotent Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PCB 77, and Benzo[a]pyrene

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 50, 期 9, 页码 4826-4835

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00490

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canada Research Chair program
  2. NSERC Discovery Grant [371854-20]
  3. Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adverse effects associated with exposure to dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) are mediated primarily through activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR). However, little is known about the cascades of events that link activation of the AHR to apical adverse effects. Therefore, this study used high-throughput, next-generation molecular tools to investigate similarities and differences in whole transcriptome and whole proteome responses to equipotent concentrations of three agonists of the AHR, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PCB 77, and benzo[a]pyrene, in livers of a nonmodel fish, the white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus). A total of 926 and 658 unique transcripts were up- and down-regulated, respectively, by one or more of the three chemicals. Of the transcripts shared by responses to all three chemicals, 85% of up-regulated transcripts and 75% of down-regulated transcripts had the same magnitude of response. A total of 290 and 110 unique proteins were up- and down-regulated, respectively, by one or more of the three chemicals. Of the proteins shared by responses to all three chemicals, 70% of up-regulated proteins and 48% of down-regulated proteins had the same magnitude of response. Among treatments there was 68% similarity between the global transcriptome and global proteome. Pathway analysis revealed that perturbed physiological processes were indistinguishable between equipotent concentrations of the three chemicals. The results of this study contribute toward more completely describing adverse outcome pathways associated with activation of the AHR.

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