3.9 Article

Long-Term Exposure of Lead Acetate on Rabbit Renal Tissue

期刊

出版社

KOWSAR PUBL
DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.22157

关键词

Kidney; Lead Acetate; Morphologic; Morphometric; Urinary Barrier; Glomeruli

资金

  1. Bushehr University of Medical Sciences
  2. Zahedan University of Medical Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lead has been widely used in different industries forages. It is one of the heavy metals, highly poisonous even at low doses, and has biochemical, physiological and behavioral side effects on human and animals. It has been shown that lead has toxic effects on different tissues such as neural and genitourinary tissues, cardiovascular systems and blood. Therefore, high attention has been paid to its environmental pollutions. Objectives: Although many histological and biochemical studies have reported about the effects of lead on the renal tissue, there are a few studies about the ultrastructure and morphometric effects of lead on the kidney Hence, the aim of this study was the evaluation of morphology and morphometrics of rabbit renal urinary barrier ultrastructure following long-term exposure to lead acetate. Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, 20 male New Zealand rabbits were divided into control and test groups (to in each). The test group was injected intraperitoneally with chronic dose (8.5 mg/kg of body weight) of lead acetate and for the control group the same volume of normal saline was used, every other day form weeks. After anesthetizing, the biopsies of renal tissues were taken for light and electron microscopic morphometric and morphologic analyses. Results: Long-term exposure to lead acetate caused histopathology effects including dilatation, congestion, nuclei heterochromatic effects, increase in diameter of renal tubules and urinary barrier thickness in rabbit renal tissue. Conclusions: Quantitative and qualitative results of long-term lead acetate exposure showed many histopathology side-effects, especially in the urinary barrier.

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

3.9
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