36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Isothiocyanates Reduce Mercury Accumulation via an Nrf2-Dependent Mechanism during Exposure of Mice to Methylmercury

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Methylmercury (MeHg) exhibits neurotoxicity through accumulation in the brain. The transcription factor Nrf2 (nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2) plays an important role in reducing the cellular accumulation of MeHg.

          Objectives: We investigated the protective effect of isothiocyanates, which are known to activate Nrf2, on the accumulation of mercury after exposure to MeHg in vitro and in vivo.

          Methods: We used primary mouse hepatocytes in in vitro experiments and mice as an in vivo model. We used Western blotting, luciferase assays, atomic absorption spectrometry assays, and MTT [3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide] assays, and we identified toxicity in mice based on hind-limb flaccidity and mortality.

          Results: The isothiocyanates 6-methylsulfinylhexyl isothiocyanate (6-HITC) and sulforaphane (SFN) activated Nrf2 and up-regulated downstream proteins associated with MeHg excretion, such as glutamate-cysteine ligase, glutathione S-transferase, and multidrug resistance–associated protein, in primary mouse hepatocytes. Under these conditions, intracellular glutathione levels increased in wild-type but not Nrf2-deficient primary mouse hepatocytes. Pretreatment with 6-HITC and SFN before MeHg exposure suppressed cellular accumulation of mercury and cytotoxicity in wild-type but not Nrf2-deficient primary mouse hepatocytes. In comparison, in vivo administration of MeHg to Nrf2-deficient mice resulted in increased sensitivity to mercury concomitant with an increase in mercury accumulation in the brain and liver. Injection of SFN before administration of MeHg resulted in a decrease in mercury accumulation in the brain and liver of wild-type, but not Nrf2-deficient, mice.

          Conclusions: Through activation of Nrf2, 6-HITC and SFN can suppress mercury accumulation and intoxication caused by MeHg intake.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sensitivity to carcinogenesis is increased and chemoprotective efficacy of enzyme inducers is lost in nrf2 transcription factor-deficient mice.

          Induction of phase 2 enzymes, which neutralize reactive electrophiles and act as indirect antioxidants, appears to be an effective means for achieving protection against a variety of carcinogens in animals and humans. Transcriptional control of the expression of these enzymes is mediated, at least in part, through the antioxidant response element (ARE) found in the regulatory regions of their genes. The transcription factor Nrf2, which binds to the ARE, appears to be essential for the induction of prototypical phase 2 enzymes such as glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) and NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase (NQO1). Constitutive hepatic and gastric activities of GST and NQO1 were reduced by 50-80% in nrf2-deficient mice compared with wild-type mice. Moreover, the 2- to 5-fold induction of these enzymes in wild-type mice by the chemoprotective agent oltipraz, which is currently in clinical trials, was almost completely abrogated in the nrf2-deficient mice. In parallel with the enzymatic changes, nrf2-deficient mice had a significantly higher burden of gastric neoplasia after treatment with benzo[a]pyrene than did wild-type mice. Oltipraz significantly reduced multiplicity of gastric neoplasia in wild-type mice by 55%, but had no effect on tumor burden in nrf2-deficient mice. Thus, Nrf2 plays a central role in the regulation of constitutive and inducible expression of phase 2 enzymes in vivo and dramatically influences susceptibility to carcinogenesis. Moreover, the total loss of anticarcinogenic efficacy of oltipraz in the nrf2-disrupted mice highlights the prime importance of elevated phase 2 gene expression in chemoprotection by this and similar enzyme inducers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Molecular mechanism activating Nrf2-Keap1 pathway in regulation of adaptive response to electrophiles.

            Electrophile responsive element (EpRE)-mediated gene induction is a pivotal mechanism of cellular defense against the toxicity of electrophiles and reactive oxygen species (ROS). Nrf2, which belongs to the cap'-n'-collar family of basic region-leucine zipper transcription factors, has emerged as an essential component of an EpRE-binding transcriptional complex. Detailed analysis of the regulatory mechanism governing Nrf2 activity led to the identification of Keap1, which represses Nrf2 activity by directly binding to the N-terminal Neh2 domain. Keap1 interaction with Neh2 leads to the sequestration of Nrf2 in the cytoplasm and to the enhancement of Nrf2 degradation by proteasomes conferring tight regulation on the response. Electrophiles act to counteract sequestration of Nrf2 by Keap1 and provoke Nrf2 activation. Constitutive activation of Nrf2-regulated transcription in Keap1 knockout mice clearly demonstrated that the disruption of Keap1 repression is sufficient for the activation of Nrf2. These observations indicated that the mechanism that modulates Nrf2-Keap1 interaction is pivotal for the cellular sensing mechanism for electrophiles. Recent analyses argue that the redox mechanism that modifies cysteine residues of Keap1 governs the Keap1-Nrf2 interaction and therefore is critical for sensing of electrophiles.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Targeting NRF2 signaling for cancer chemoprevention.

              Modulation of the metabolism and disposition of carcinogens through induction of cytoprotective enzymes is one of several promising strategies to prevent cancer. Chemopreventive efficacies of inducers such as dithiolethiones and sulforaphane have been extensively studied in animals as well as in humans. The KEAP1-NRF2 system is a key, but not unilateral, molecular target for these chemopreventive agents. The transcription factor NRF2 (NF-E2-related factor 2) is a master regulator of the expression of a subset of genes, which produce proteins responsible for the detoxication of electrophiles and reactive oxygen species as well as the removal or repair of some of their damage products. It is believed that chemopreventive enzyme inducers affect the interaction between KEAP1 and NRF2 through either mediating conformational changes of the KEAP1 protein or activating phosphorylation cascades targeting the KEAP1-NRF2 complex. These events in turn affect NRF2 stability and trafficking. Recent advances elucidating the underlying structural biology of KEAP1-NRF2 signaling and identification of the gene clusters under the transcriptional control of NRF2 are facilitating understanding of the potential pleiotropic effects of NRF2 activators and discovery of novel classes of potent chemopreventive agents such as the triterpenoids. Although there is appropriately a concern regarding a deleterious role of the KEAP1-NRF2 system in cancer cell biology, especially as the pathway affects cell survival and drug resistance, the development and the use of NRF2 activators as chemopreventive agents still holds a great promise for protection of normal cells from a diversity of environmental stresses that contribute to the burden of cancer and other chronic, degenerative diseases. 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Environ Health Perspect
                EHP
                Environmental Health Perspectives
                National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
                0091-6765
                1552-9924
                07 March 2011
                August 2011
                : 119
                : 8
                : 1117-1122
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Doctoral Programs in Medical Sciences, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
                [2 ]Research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Tokyo, Japan
                [3 ]Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Biochemistry Section, National Institute for Minamata Disease, Minamata, Japan
                [4 ]Graduate School of Bioagricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Aichi, Japan
                [5 ]Department of Medical Biochemistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to Y. Kumagai, Environmental Medicine Section, Doctoral Programs in Medical Sciences, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8575, Japan. Telephone/Fax: 81-29-853-3133. E-mail: yk-em-tu@ 123456md.tsukuba.ac.jp
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this study.

                Article
                ehp.1003123
                10.1289/ehp.1003123
                3237354
                21382770
                86248755-87fd-40ea-9f9a-e00792be2f6d
                Copyright @ 2011

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 24 October 2010
                : 07 March 2011
                Categories
                Research

                Public health
                chemoprevention,sulforaphane,nrf2,methylmercury,glutathione,6-methylsulfinylhexyl isothiocyanate

                Comments

                Comment on this article