4.7 Article

Subchronic inhalation of mixtures of cigarette smoke constituents in Xpa-/-p53+/- knock-out mice: A comparison of intermittent with semi-continuous exposure to acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and acrolein

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 527-536

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2007.08.043

关键词

acetaldehyde; formaldehyde; acrolein; mice; turnout; Xpa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated whether inhaling peak concentrations of aldehydes several times daily is more damaging than semi-continuously inhaling low-dose aldehydes. We exposed Xpa-/-p53+/- knock-out mice either intermittently or semi-continuously to mixed acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and acrolein. The intermittent regimen entailed exposure to the aldehydes 7 min every 45 min, 12 times/day, 5 days/week, corresponding to concentrations inhaled by smokers. Semi-continuously exposed animals received half the dose of aldehydes in 8 h/day, 5 days/week. Some mice in each group were sacrificed after 13 weeks of exposure; the rest breathed clean air until the end of 1 year. Mice injected intratracheally with benzo[a]pyrene formed a positive control group. The nasal cavity, lungs, and any macroscopically abnormal organs of all mice were analysed histopathologically. After 13 weeks of exposure, the subacute, overall, histopathological changes induced by the inhalation differed noticeably between the intermittently and semi-continuously treated Xpa-/-p53+/- knock-out mice. After 13 weeks of mixed aldehyde exposure, atrophy of the olfactory epithelium generally appeared, but disappeared after I year (adaptation and/or recovery). Respiratory epithelia] metaplasia of the olfactory epithelium occurred at a higher incidence at I year. Except for a significantly greater number of tumours observed in knock-out mice compared to wild mice (semi-continuous aldehyde exposure and controls), no differences between the semi-continuous and intermittent exposure groups were observed. (C) 2007 Elsevier 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

4.7
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