|
|
|
|
|
Objective Intro Materials Procedure Results 1 Results 2 Results 3 Discussion Lit. Cited Prep Sheet |
||
|
Discussion
One possible reason for the arsenic’s apparent
lack of effect on zebrafish development is that neural patterning
defects in vertebrates,
such as those associated with arsenic exposure, are notoriously
difficult to detect from morphological observation alone
(Furutani-Seiki
et
al 1996). The neural tube forms by the process of apoptotic
cavitation in fish, as compared to neural groove invagination in
mammals, and
as a result, makes gross morphological observation of neural
tube defects much harder to recognize. Alternate methods for observing
neural tube defects include in situ hybridization of neural
associated
proteins as well as staining for molecular apoptosis markers
that are associated with neural development in zebrafish (Furutani-Seiki
et al 1996). In further studies, we would employ these types
of
assays in addition to morphological observations. We examined the possibility that the chorion, a semi-permeable protective membrane that surrounds the developing embryo, might prevent arsenic from reaching the developing embryo and found there to be no observable difference in development between chorionated and dechorionated embryos. Studies suggest that effective embryonic exposure to certain chemicals requires the dechorionation of zebrafish embryos (Hammerschmidt et al 1999). Permeation assays of glycerol and DMSO have suggested that the chorion retards the free exchange of solutes into and out of the interchorionic space (Harvey et al 1983). Our results, however, show no difference in the effect of arsenic exposure on chorionated versus dechorionated embryos, given that all embryos in treatment 3 survived.
In two separate treatments (8 h group in 1200 µM, viewed at
96 hr and 5 h group in 100 µM, viewed at 24 hr), cell
blebbing in the head region was observed. We do not think
this to be an arsenic-related
incident. Rather, we propose that this blebbing was associated
with cell death (Hagstrom et al 1999) and might reflect
chemical or microbial
contamination. It is important to note that due to the inaccuracy
of our weighing devices (+/- 0.1 g) a large number of dilutions
had to be made,
with the possible effect of creating a disparity between
expected arsenic
concentration and actual concentration. Regardless, our
results are puzzling especially in light of the fact that
other studies
show 80%-100%
mortality at the 400-650 µM As(V) equivalents (Dabrowski
1975, Tchounwou 2001, Chaineau et al 1990).
|