4.4 Article

Blood-brain barrier permeability to enrofloxacin in Pengze crucian carp (Carassius auratus var. Pengze)

期刊

VETERINARY MEDICINE AND SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 2404-2410

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/vms3.918

关键词

blood-brain barrier; drug residues; enrofloxacin; Pengze crucian carp

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31860735]
  2. Integration and Demonstration of Rice and Fishery Green Ecological Comprehensive Planting and Breeding Technology [20192ACB60009]
  3. Key Project of Science and Technology Plan of Jiangxi Department of Education [GJJ190169]
  4. Key R&D Project of Jiangxi Province [20171BBF60056]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enrofloxacin has destructive effects on the blood-brain barrier of crucian carp and increases permeability, leading to the entry of enrofloxacin into the brain and inducing brain damage.
Background: Enrofloxacin (ENR) is a kind of quinolone antibiotic that is most widely used antimicrobials in veterinary practice, and possesses both a broad spectrum antimicrobial activity against a range of bacteria and adverse effects towards plants and animals. Objectives: This study was conducted to explore the permeability of blood-brain barrier (BBB) to ENR and brain injury based on crucian carp orally administrated with high dose of ENR. Methods: Juvenile Pengze crucian carp were treated with half lethal dose (LD50) or safe dose (SD50) of ENR. BBB permeability was determined by evaluating ENR contents detected by H PLC and evens blue contents estimated by confocal laser scanning microscope. Brain damage was evaluated by measuring protein and m RNA contents of related molecules with western blotting and qPCR. Results: Data indicated that ENR destroyed BBB structure of crucian carp and enhanced permeability of the biological barrier, resulting in more ENR crossed BBB and induced brain damage of crucian carp. Conclusions: This data indicated that ENR can induce brain damage of crucian carp through destroying BBB structure and enhancing permeability.

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

4.4
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