Advertisement

Neurochemical Research

, Volume 40, Issue 10, pp 2091–2101 | Cite as

Paraoxon and Pyridostigmine Interfere with Neural Stem Cell Differentiation

  • Verónica O. Berríos
  • Nawal M. Boukli
  • Jose W. Rodriguez
  • Priscilla D. Negraes
  • Telma T. Schwindt
  • Cleber A. Trujillo
  • Sophia L. B. Oliveira
  • Luis A. Cubano
  • P. A. Ferchmin
  • Vesna A. Eterović
  • Henning Ulrich
  • Antonio H. MartinsEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition has been described as the main mechanism of organophosphate (OP)-evoked toxicity. OPs represent a human health threat, because chronic exposure to low doses can damage the developing brain, and acute exposure can produce long-lasting damage to adult brains, despite post-exposure medical countermeasures. Although the main mechanism of OP toxicity is AChE inhibition, several lines of evidence suggest that OPs also act by other mechanisms. We hypothesized that rat neural progenitor cells extracted on embryonic day 14.5 would be affected by constant inhibition of AChE from chronic exposure to OP or pyridostigmine (a reversible AChE blocker) during differentiation. In this work, the OP paraoxon decreased cell viability in concentrations >50 μM, as measured with the MTT assay; however, this effect was not dose-dependent. Reduced viability could not be attributed to blockade of AChE activity, since treatment with 200 µM pyridostigmine did not affect cell viability, even after 6 days. Although changes in protein expression patterns were noted in both treatments, the distribution of differentiated phenotypes, such as the percentages of neurons and glial cells, was not altered, as determined by flow cytometry. Since paraoxon and pyridostigmine each decreased neurite outgrowth (but did not prevent differentiation), we infer that developmental patterns may have been affected.

Keywords

Organophosphates Proteomics Neural progenitor cells Differentiation Paraoxon 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the following NIH Grants: NINDS SNRP U54NS083924 (AHM), NIMHD RTRN Small Grant U54RR022762 (AHM), NIMHD 8G12MD007583 RCMI Biomedical Proteomics Facility (NMB), NIMHD 8G12MD007583 RCMI Neural Glial Facility (PAF). The authors wish to thank Madeline Rodriguez and Sheila Lopez for their valuable research contribution during the preparation of this manuscript and the Proteomics Center at the University of Texas Medical Branch for the mass spectrometry service. HU acknowledges grant support from Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brazil. CAT and PDN acknowledge fellowship support from FAPESP. SLBO was supported by CNPq.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Casida JE, Quistad GB (2004) Organophosphate toxicology: safety aspects of nonacetylcholinesterase secondary targets. Chem Res Toxicol 17(8):983–998CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Main AR (1969) Kinetics of cholinesterase inhibition by organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. Can Med Assoc J 100(4):161–167PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andersen JB et al (2014) Total drug treatment and comorbidity in myasthenia gravis: a population-based cohort study. Eur J Neurol 21(7):948–955PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hail SL, Obafemi A, Kleinschmidt KC (2013) Successful management of olanzapine-induced anticholinergic agitation and delirium with a continuous intravenous infusion of physostigmine in a pediatric patient. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 51(3):162–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Butler AM, Murray M (1997) Biotransformation of parathion in human liver: participation of CYP3A4 and its inactivation during microsomal parathion oxidation. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 280(2):966–973PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li H et al (2007) Aging pathways for organophosphate-inhibited human butyrylcholinesterase, including novel pathways for isomalathion, resolved by mass spectrometry. Toxicol Sci 100(1):136–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bahrami F et al (2009) Type of cell death and the role of acetylcholinesterase activity in neurotoxicity induced by paraoxon in cultured rat hippocampal neurons. Acta Biol Hung 60(1):1–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Massicotte C et al (2005) Effects of organophosphorus compounds on ATP production and mitochondrial integrity in cultured cells. Neurotox Res 7(3):203–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abou-Donia MB et al (2001) Locomotor and sensorimotor performance deficit in rats following exposure to pyridostigmine bromide, DEET, and permethrin, alone and in combination. Toxicol Sci 60(2):305–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martins AH et al (2008) Kinin-B2 receptor expression and activity during differentiation of embryonic rat neurospheres. Cytometry A 73(4):361–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luo MH, Schwartz PH, Fortunato EA (2008) Neonatal neural progenitor cells and their neuronal and glial cell derivatives are fully permissive for human cytomegalovirus infection. J Virol 82(20):9994–10007PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Toma JG et al (2001) Isolation of multipotent adult stem cells from the dermis of mammalian skin. Nat Cell Biol 3(9):778–784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reynolds BA, Tetzlaff W, Weiss S (1992) A multipotent EGF-responsive striatal embryonic progenitor cell produces neurons and astrocytes. J Neurosci 12(11):4565–4574PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Negraes PD et al (2012) Neural differentiation of P19 carcinoma cells and primary neurospheres: cell morphology, proliferation, viability, and functionality. Curr Protoc Stem Cell Biol 2:2D–9DGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pohanka M (2008) Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors: a patent review. Expert Opin Ther Pat 22(8):871–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ellman GL et al (1961) A new and rapid colorimetric determination of acetylcholinesterase activity. Biochem Pharmacol 7:88–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sholl DA (1953) Dendritic organization in the neurons of the visual and motor cortices of the cat. J Anat 87(4):387–406PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhao S et al (2013) Constraint-induced movement therapy overcomes the intrinsic axonal growth-inhibitory signals in stroke rats. Stroke 44(6):1698–1705CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jung JE et al (2009) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) inhibits neurite outgrowth in differentiating human SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells. Toxicol Lett 188(2):153–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frimat JP et al (2010) The network formation assay: a spatially standardized neurite outgrowth analytical display for neurotoxicity screening. Lab Chip 10(6):701–709CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buzanska L et al (2009) A human stem cell-based model for identifying adverse effects of organic and inorganic chemicals on the developing nervous system. Stem Cells 27(10):2591–2601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Visan A et al (2012) Neural differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells as a tool to assess developmental neurotoxicity in vitro. Neurotoxicology. 33(5):1135–1146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kousba AA et al (2004) Comparison of chlorpyrifos-oxon and paraoxon acetylcholinesterase inhibition dynamics: potential role of a peripheral binding site. Toxicol Sci 80(2):239–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang D et al (2008) Chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-oxon inhibit axonal growth by interfering with the morphogenic activity of acetylcholinesterase. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 228(1):32–41PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dori A et al (2005) Functional manipulations of acetylcholinesterase splice variants highlight alternative splicing contributions to murine neocortical development. Cereb Cortex 15(4):419–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Trujillo CA et al (2012) Kinin-B2 receptor activity determines the differentiation fate of neural stem cells. J Biol Chem 287(53):44046–44061PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Verónica O. Berríos
    • 1
  • Nawal M. Boukli
    • 2
  • Jose W. Rodriguez
    • 3
  • Priscilla D. Negraes
    • 4
  • Telma T. Schwindt
    • 4
  • Cleber A. Trujillo
    • 4
  • Sophia L. B. Oliveira
    • 4
  • Luis A. Cubano
    • 1
  • P. A. Ferchmin
    • 1
  • Vesna A. Eterović
    • 1
  • Henning Ulrich
    • 4
  • Antonio H. Martins
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of BiochemistryUniversidad Central del CaribeBayamónUSA
  2. 2.Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Biomedical Proteomics FacilityUniversidad Central del CaribeBayamónUSA
  3. 3.Department of Microbiology and ImmunologyUniversidad Central del CaribeBayamónUSA
  4. 4.Departamento de Bioquímica, Instituto de QuímicaUniversidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations