Biological Trace Element Research

, Volume 145, Issue 3, pp 349–354 | Cite as

Direct Absorption of Methyl Mercury by Lymph

  • Kaeko Murota
  • Mai Yoshida
  • Nana Ishibashi
  • Hideo Yamazaki
  • Takeshi Minami
Article

Abstract

Methyl mercury is contained in fish and seafood products and is taken up into the body in food. While the central nervous system is known as a target organ, methyl mercury also induces autoimmunity and acts as a potent immunosuppressor. The aim of the present study is to know whether methyl mercury is directly absorbed by lymph. Conscious rats were infused with methyl mercury (4 mg/kg) via duodenal tubing as a single pulse infusion, followed by the continuous infusion of saline, and lymphatic fluids were continuously collected from the thoracic lymph duct every 30 min until 360 min after infusion. Mercury was detected immediately after infusion, and total mercury contents in lymph gradually increased until 90–120 min, remained steady, and then gradually decreased until 360 min; however, the amount of mercury collected during 330–360 min was about twofold higher than during 0–30 min. The amount of cumulative mercury in lymph at 360 min was 1.4 μg. In contrast, blood mercury concentration was 2.4 μg/ml 5 min after infusion, with the value at 360 min being 12.6 times higher than at 5 min. Plasma mercury concentration was 56 ng/ml at 5 min, with hundreds of nanograms per milliliter of mercury detected until 360 min. From the present study, it is concluded that some methyl mercury is directly absorbed by lymph and remains steady 6 h after infusion.

Keywords

Methyl mercury Lymph Absorption Intestine Portal vein 

References

  1. 1.
    Watanabe C, Satoh H (1996) Evolution of our understanding of methylmercury as a health threat. Environ Health Perspect 104:367–379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castoldi AF, Johansson C, Onishchenko N, Coccini T et al (2008) Human developmental neurotoxicity of methylmercury: impact of variables and risk modifiers. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 51:201–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Newland MC, Paletz EM, Reed MN (2008) Methylmercury and nutrition: adult effects of fetal exposure in experimental models. NeuroToxicol 29:783–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patrick L (2002) Mercury toxicity and antioxidants: part I: role of glutathione and alpha-lipoic acid in the treatment of mercury toxicity. Altern Med Rev 7:456–471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Egeland GM, Middaugh JP (1997) Balancing fish consumption benefits with mercury exposure. Science 278:1904–1905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murata K, Weihe P, Araki S, Budtz-Jørgensen E, Grandjean P (1999) Evoked potentials in Faroese children prenatally exposed to methylmercury. Neurotoxicol Teratol 21:471–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Budtz-Jørgensen E, Grandjean P, Keiding N, White RF, Weihe P (2000) Benchmark dose calculations of methylmercury-associated neurobehavioural deficits. Toxicol Lett 112–113:193–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Myers GJ, Davidson PW, Cox C et al (2003) Prenatal methylmercury exposure from ocean fish consumption in the Seychelles child development study. Lancet 361:1686–1692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davidson PW, Myers GJ, Weiss B, Shamlaye CF, Cox C (2006) Prenatal methyl mercury exposure from fish consumption and child development: a review of evidence and perspectives from the Seychelles child development study. NeuroToxicology 27:1106–1109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    JECFA (2004) Methylmercury. In: Safety evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants. Report of the 61th Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Geneva, World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety. WHO Technical Report Series 922: 132–139 http://whglibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_922.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2011
  11. 11.
    Yaginuma-Sakurai K, Murata K, Shimada M, Nakai K, Kurokawa N, Kameo S, Satoh H (2010) Intervention study on cardiac autonomic nervous effects of methylmercury from seafood. Neurotoxicol Teratol 32:240–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kershaw TG, Clarkson TW, Dhahir PH (1980) The relationship between blood levels and dose of methylmercury in man. Arch Environ Health 35:28–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clarkson TW, Vyas JB, Ballatori N (2007) Mechanisms of mercury disposition in the body. Am J Ind Med 50:757–764PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suda I, Hirayama K (1992) Degradation of methyl and ethyl mercury into inorganic mercury by hydroxyl radical produced from rat liver microsomes. Arch Toxicol 66:398–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suda I, Takahashi H (1986) Enhanced and inhibited biotransformation of methyl mercury in the rat spleen. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 82:45–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hansen JC, Danscher G (1995) Quantitative and qualitative distribution of mercury in organs from arctic sledgedogs; and atomic absorption spectrophotometric and histochemical study of tissue samples from natural log-termed high dietary organic mercury-exposed dogs from Thule, Greenland. Pharmacol Toxicol 77:189–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Havarinasab S, Björn E, Nielsen JB, Hultman P (2007) Mercury species in lymphoid and non-lymphoid tissues after exposure to methyl mercury: correlation with autoimmune parameters during and after treatment in susceptible mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 221:21–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pheng S-R, Auger C, Chakrabarti S, Massicotte E, Lamontagne L (2003) Sensitivity to methylmercury-induced autoimmune disease in mice correlates with resistance to apoptosis of activated CD4+ lymphocytes. J Autoimmun 20:147–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Häggqvist B, Havarinasab S, Björn E, Hultman P (2005) The immunosuppressive effect of methylmercury does not preclude development of autoimmunity in genetically susceptible mice. Toxicology 208:149–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coccini T, Randine G, Castoldi AF, Acerbi D, Manzo L (2007) Methylmercury interaction with lymphocyte cholinergic muscarinic receptors in developing rats. Environ Res 103:229–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tonk ECM, de Groot MG, Penninks AH et al (2010) Developmental immunotoxicity of methylmercury: the relative sensitivity of developmental and immune parameters. Toxicol Sci 117:325–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Havarinasab S, Hultman P (2005) Organic mercury compounds and autoimmunity. Autoimmu Rev 4:270–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Minich DM, Vonk RJ, Verkade HJ (1997) Intestinal absorption of essential fatty acids under physiological and essential fatty acid-deficient conditions. J Lipid Res 38:1709–1721PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Porsgaard T, Straarup EM, Høy C-E (1999) Lymphatic fatty acid absorption profile during 24 hours after administration of triglycerides to rats. Lipids 34:103–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Porsgaard T, Høy C-E (2000) Lymphatic transport in rats of several dietary fats differing in fatty acid profile and triacylglycerol structure. J Nutr 130:1619–1624PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hara H, Wakisaka T, Aoyama Y (2003) Lymphatic absorption of plasmalogen in rats. Br J Nutr 90:29–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang DQ-H, Carey MC (2003) Measurement of intestinal cholesterol absorption by plasma and fecal dual-isotope ratio, mass balance, and lymph fistula methods in the mouse: an analysis of direct versus indirect methodologies. J Lipid Res 44:1042–1059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kitagawa H, Yoshizawa Y, Yokoyama T et al (2003) Persorption of bovine lactoferrin from the intestinal lumen into the systemic circulation via the portal vein and the mesenteric lymphatics in growing pigs. J Vet Med Sci 65:567–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Murota K, Terao J (2005) Quercetin appears in the lymph of unanesthetized fats as its phase II metabolites after administered into the stomach. FEBS Lett 579:5343–5346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matusmoto M, Chiji H, Hara H (2005) Intestinal absorption and metabolism of a soluble flabonoid, alpha G-rutin, in portal cannulated rats. Free Radic Res 39:1139–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matsumoto M, Hosokawa M, Matsukawa N et al (2010) Suppressive effects of the marine carotenoids, fucoxanthin and fucoxanthinol on triglyceride absorption in lymph duct-cannulated rats. Eur J Nutr 49:243–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    JECFA (2006) Methylmercury. In: Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants. Report of the 67th Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Rome, World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety. WHO Technical Report Series 940: 53–61 http://whglibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_940_eng.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2011
  33. 33.
    Clausing P, Riedel B, Gericke S, Grün G, Müller L (1984) Differences in the distribution of methyl mercury in erythrocytes, plasma, and brain of Japanese quails and rats after a single oral dose. Arch Toxicol 56:132–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shenker BJ, Rooney C, Vitale L, Shapiro IM (1992) Immunotoxic effects of mercuric compounds on human lymphocytes and monocytes: I. Suppression of T-cell activation. Immunopharcol Immunotoxicol 14:539–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kaeko Murota
    • 1
  • Mai Yoshida
    • 1
  • Nana Ishibashi
    • 1
  • Hideo Yamazaki
    • 1
  • Takeshi Minami
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Life Sciences, School of Science and EngineeringKinki UniversityOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations